PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Tuesday 16 September.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Small Business

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss the application of the Industrial Development Acts to Scotland.

Alistair Darling: I will continue to engage with all those involved in the Scottish economy. I will be very happy to meet representatives of small businesses to discuss industrial development.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will know that there has been a huge increase in the amount of funds that are available under the Act. Obviously small firms are vital for the Scottish economy. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what percentage of his grants will go to the small firms sector? Will he also tell us what mechanisms for accountability will be put in place to oversee the expenditure of the money, both in this Parliament and in the Scottish Assembly?

Alistair Darling: First, I should perhaps point out that it is the Scottish Parliament. As the House will know, I am very aware of these things.
	Secondly, as for legislation, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fact that the Government have increased the amount of money available for industrial assistance. He will be aware that under the Scotland Act 1998 responsibility for disbursing these funds is exercisable by the Scottish Executive, who have chosen to do so largely through Scottish Enterprise. It will be a matter for Scottish Enterprise as to how and what proportion goes to small businesses. I am pleased to note that in the first quarter of this year nearly 5,000 new firms were set up in Scotland, which I hope the whole House will welcome.

John Thurso: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of small firms, what will he say to them about the massive hikes that they have suffered in employers liability insurance? Is he aware of the recent Federation of Small Businesses survey, which reported that 20 per cent. of firms have had a doubling of their premium; 25 per cent. have difficulty in getting cover at all; and 60 per cent. report a drop in profitability? What can the Government do to assist this vital sector?

Alistair Darling: I am aware of the problem. I expect that most Members will have been approached by constituents in the small business sector, who have faced quite substantial increases in premiums. That is partly because for a long time the industry was quoting low premiums. It has now had to increase them because of claims. There is also concern about a contraction in the insurance market, especially in certain sectors. It is something that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury and in other Government Departments are considering. It is clearly for the market to provide solutions in relation to insurance, but it is something about which the Government are concerned. Public liability insurance is becoming an increasing burden on business, and is something on which we want to keep a very close eye.

Iain Luke: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his recent visit to Dundee and on his visit to small businesses in my constituency? They welcomed his commitment that the Government will do all that they can on issues such as insurance liability indemnity. Will he therefore continue to ensure that there is a strong Scottish voice in the different Departments in the United Kingdom to ensure that Scottish small businesses get their fair share and that their voices are heard at all levels of government in the UK?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend knows that I spent an extremely interesting day in Dundee, where I saw some examples of extremely good innovation in the biotech sector in which companies have been set up as a result of research that has been carried out in Dundee as well as in other parts of Scotland, and in which new businesses are being set up that have been extremely successful. My hon. Friend is right that there are matters about which small businesses are concerned, particularly public liability insurance, which as I said a few moments ago is something on which we need to keep a close eye. It is encouraging that with the stable economic background that we have, with the lowest interest rates since 1955, we have the sort of environment that is likely to encourage business growth and in turn generate jobs. That is something that we should all support.

Alex Salmond: I am delighted that the Assembly has become a Parliament in the Secretary of State's second Question Time. [Interruption.] Well, it only took a while.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that the Federation of Small Businesses listed access to broadband as its No. 1 priority in its recently published manifesto. Despite the fact that there are comprehensive targets in place for Northern Ireland and for Wales, there is no such comprehensive target for Scotland, which means that many areas of rural Scotland, including 25 of the 27 telephone exchanges in my constituency, do not have even a medium-term prospect of getting access to broadband. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the problem is with access to broadband in Scotland? Is it state aid rules or is it just lack of ambition on the part of the Government?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that small business has access to broadband. Next week, Scottish Enterprise is running a programme to promote e-business to make people more aware of the opportunities available to them. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, a recent report produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that Scotland is in the upper quartile of businesses that have access to broadband and e-trading. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—broadband ought to be promoted, and he will know that that is one of the jobs of Scottish Enterprise which, of course, is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. It is important that we develop that so that we can make sure that Scotland's small business sector thrives.

UK Supreme Court

Annabelle Ewing: What representations he has received concerning the proposals for a UK supreme court.

Anne McGuire: The proposals for a supreme court are currently the subject of consultation by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The consultation includes a wide range of Scottish interests. Although no responses have yet been received, the consultation does not close until 7 November.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for her answer, but is it not the case that the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland in protecting the integrity of Scots law must be viewed as compromised from the outset, as his boss at the Department for Constitutional Affairs will have the final say. Would today not be a good opportunity to support calls to end the anomaly whereby in post-devolution Scotland final appellate jurisdiction over Scots civil law lies south of the border?

Anne McGuire: I like to take the hon. Lady seriously, but sometimes it is very difficult, because every contribution she makes in the House is predicated on the fact that she wants to rip Scotland out of the partnership of the United Kingdom. I would advise her, if she wishes to make comments such as those she has made today about civil jurisdiction, that she has ample opportunity to do so during the consultation period. I would remind her that the consultation has been welcomed in Scotland by the Lord Advocate and senior members of the judiciary. I am sure that any contribution that they make to the consultation will be taken seriously by the UK Government before a decision is made.

Jacqui Lait: May I begin by welcoming today's statement on Scotland Office staffing, even though it is a shame that it will be six weeks before we can ask questions about it? On the subject of the supreme court, the hon. Lady will be aware that a number of Scottish cases go to the House of Lords each year. Can she tell us what thought has been given to arrangements for the handover of those cases to the supreme court when it comes into being? For instance, will they continue to their end in the Lords, will they be taken over by the supreme court while they are still in process, or will applicants have to return to "go"?

Anne McGuire: First, I would have been delighted to take questions on the staffing of the Scotland Office if the hon. Lady had managed to find a creative way of linking them into her question. I would like to put it on the record that this is a rational approach to the way in which the Scotland Office is now working. As for the transfer of cases, that will be managed properly—there are very few cases currently being considered by the House of Lords. Those cases that have to be dealt with by the House of Lords will, I understand, be concluded there. However, there will be transitional arrangements, and if I need to give the hon. Lady clarification of the detail of that major radical and important constitutional change in our judiciary, I shall certainly do so in writing.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful for that offer and for the hon. Lady's putting on record the plan for handling the issue. On another angle of this matter, as the proposed creation of the supreme court shows that the devolution settlement is not settled, which parts of the House of Lords Committee, chaired by Lord Norton, is she considering for implementation?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Lady's question is so obtuse that even I do not understand it in this very robust debate. When we had an opportunity to discuss issues relating to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Scotland Office, she did not raise the matter, but perhaps I could meet her after Scottish questions and we could discuss it in detail. Finally, we are dealing with a transitional arrangement for a radical approach to our judiciary in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed that.

Parliamentary Boundaries

Michael Connarty: When he will approve the detailed timetable for legislation on new boundaries for UK parliamentary seats in Scotland.

Alistair Darling: The House will know that it is up to the boundary commission to decide when it reports to me on its current review of the parliamentary constituencies. However, as I have made clear in the past, as soon as I receive the report I shall lay it before Parliament, together with an order to give effect to its recommendations.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful for that reply. I just wonder whether there may be a problem in deciding whether to put Dungavel prison into an English constituency, or whether my right hon. Friend will intervene to solve by some other, more positive, method the problem at Dungavel of children being locked up in a former prison.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. The Minister will not reply.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that, given the radical proposals on reducing the number of MPs in Scotland, which my party supports and recognises as a consequence of devolution, it is important to ensure that the matter is resolved clearly and not dragged out to add to the confusion? In the process, will he consider bringing together the review of Westminster and Scottish boundaries to avoid a long period of confusion about different boundaries in different Parliaments, and perhaps also take the opportunity to introduce the single transferable vote for the Scottish Parliament at the same time?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman's question had three parts. It was very clear that once the Scotland Act 1998 was passed, the number of Members of Parliament that Scotland sent to Westminster would be reduced. I have made that clear, as has the Prime Minister, and that is what is going to happen. Indeed, I say that with some feeling, as I am quite directly affected by some of the recommendations made by the boundary commission.
	When the boundary commission reports is a matter for it, as it is independent of government, but it has said that it will probably have finished its review of the Westminster constituencies at the beginning of next year. The House will also be aware that, at the moment, its terms of reference mean that it will go on to look at the consequential effects for the Scottish Parliament. As we are going to legislate to maintain 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, that work will not be necessary, but I hope that that will not hold up the reorganisation of Westminster parliamentary constituencies.
	Voting systems will be a matter of discussion, especially among the parties in Scotland. I know that there are concerns not only about individual systems but about the fact that four different systems will be in operation in Scotland. I am sure that all of us, no matter what political party we belong to, will have thoughts about that, but it is something that needs to be discussed in Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, I can tell the House that the only legislation that we are contemplating at the moment will maintain the 129 Members. We are not contemplating any other legislation at the moment, but that is not to say that debate about these matters will not take place over the next few months and years.

David Taylor: Following the implementation of the boundary review, which will reduce the number of Scottish MPs—it is currently a tad unfair to those of us south of the border—does the Secretary of State believe that there will be a parallel reduction for similar reasons in the over-generous Barnett formula?

Alistair Darling: Public spending and its distribution are, of course, something that the Chancellor keeps under review. If I were my hon. Friend, I would take satisfaction—if that is what it is from his point of view—from the fact that there will be something of a parity between English and Scottish constituencies, which I think most of us believe is absolutely necessary following the introduction of the Scotland Act 1998.

Peter Duncan: Notwithstanding the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), will he deny speculation that he plans to remove from the remit of the boundary commission the requirement to allocate Scottish constituencies to regions in Scotland? If he cannot do so, is it because he plans to gerrymander that process himself, or has he decided to move already to another form of proportional representation that is perhaps more suited to his party's interests?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is not alone in feeling confused today, as I am feeling completely confused about what on earth the hon. Gentleman is saying. For the avoidance of doubt, I have said that we intend to introduce legislation only to maintain the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. I also said that the boundary commission's work in relation to the reduction of numbers in the Westminster Parliament will go ahead.
	On what electoral systems might prevail in Scotland in future, I wish to make two observations. First, I think that the issue needs to be discussed by political parties in Scotland. Secondly, no one party has a monopoly of wisdom here and some thought must be given to what systems are appropriate. This is the sort of debate that will no doubt continue for months and years, and I am totally relaxed about that.

Overseas Ministerial Visits

Nicholas Winterton: If he will list the overseas visits he has (a) undertaken since 12 June and (b) planned for the future.

Alistair Darling: I have made no overseas visits since 12 June in my capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have no plans to do so.

Nicholas Winterton: The reason I ask the question is that Scotland faces severe problems of economic growth and huge job losses in manufacturing industry. Industry is plagued by a very high business rate, which, in my view, needs cutting. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to encourage further inward investment in Scottish manufacturing, which is so important if we are to provide jobs for the Scottish people? As an English MP, I am as concerned about manufacturing in Scotland as in England or in my own constituency.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have put down a question on manufacturing in Scotland. He has been given an answer, and I do not intend to call a supplementary.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State says that he has not conducted a single trip to another country. May I strongly urge him to do so, for one reason? He might be able to broaden his experience and to learn how few countries lock up in prison the children of asylum seekers. Can he name one European country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is out of order. The supplementary should relate to the question that was tabled. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my ruling. He seems to be in an awful state. [Interruption.] Did he say that he is challenging my ruling?

Nicholas Winterton: As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I should not do so.

Mr. Speaker: That is fine, then.

UK Elections

George Foulkes: What plans he has to ensure that those eligible to vote in UK elections are registered on the voters' register.

Anne McGuire: It is the responsibility of local electoral registration officers to take reasonable steps to obtain the information required to prepare and publish registers of local government and parliamentary electors.

George Foulkes: I have to say that I find the Under-Secretary's reply rather complacent. [Interruption.] Yes, I am off the Christmas card list. Has she seen the parliamentary answers indicating that more than 100,000 people in Scotland who ought to be on the register are not on it? As this is one area for which the Scotland Office does have ministerial responsibility, will she urge electoral registration officers to intensify their activities to ensure that people who are eligible are on the register? Will she also draw the matter to the attention of the boundaries commission? If 100,000 Scots voters are not on the register, that will have a significant impact on its work.

Anne McGuire: I share my right hon. Friend's concern that some people, for a variety of reasons, do not take up their opportunity to register. The Electoral Commission is considering ways in which we can encourage people to do so. As my right hon. Friend knows from his previous existence as a Minister in the Scotland Office, a great deal of work is done with electoral registration officers to ensure that their methods for getting people on to the register are robust and thorough. Changes have been made to the way in which we register. For example, rolling registration allows electors to provide updated details at any time. We need to consider how accurate registers were under the previous conditions and how accurately they reflect the current situation. I take my right hon. Friend's comments on board, and I am sure that they will have been heard by electoral registration officers, who no doubt listen to Scottish questions.

Archy Kirkwood: Some of us deeply regret the passing of the personal canvass that used to be part of the operation, because it guaranteed that if people were at their addresses they would be found. I know that she is as jealous of civil liberties as I am, but would she consider giving electoral registration officers access to other publicly held information for matching purposes? They have access to council tax data, but those data only identify one householder. Household benefit lists give the names of everyone living at an address. Will the hon. Lady consider whether the regulations could give extra powers to EROs to check and match the gaps in the current postal arrangements?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman will know that in May 2000, the Electoral Commission published its report on electoral registration processes and concerns about under-registration. Insufficient data-sharing between the various authorities was identified as one of the issues that may need reconsideration. That is the subject of a further research project by the commission, which will examine the extent and nature of non-registration throughout the United Kingdom as well as in Scotland.
	Many of us are in a position to emphasise to our local electors that people should register to ensure that they do not lose the right to vote.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 24 June.

Lynda Clark: Since 24 June, 93 devolution issues have been intimated to me. All but three related to criminal matters involving human rights claims, and the majority concerned delay in bringing criminal proceedings to trial. Other issues included challenges to the fixing of punishment part sentences for life prisoners under the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001, confiscation of assets, and a challenge to a prison governor's refusal to provide a word processor to an inmate for the preparation of an appeal.

Annabelle Ewing: I imagine that one of the devolution issues winging its way towards the hon. and learned Lady is the growing outcry in Scotland about the shameful Westminster practice of locking up the children of asylum seekers in Dungavel. Has the Advocate-General had recent contact with the Scottish Executive about the extent of their devolution powers, on the basis that health, education and social welfare issues are devolved? What is the statutory authority in Scotland for the exclusion of those children from mainstream education?

Lynda Clark: First, the Government introduced the European convention on human rights into our law. That provides a basis for domestic challenge.
	On things winging their way towards me, I shall wait with bated breath until they land on my desk. If and when that happens, I shall consider any devolution issue in detail, as I always do. The constitutional settlement is clear: asylum is a reserved matter and education is generally devolved.

Alex Salmond: Generally?

Lynda Clark: Generally. If I receive a relevant devolution matter of the sort that the hon. Lady suggested, I will scrutinise it carefully and bear her comments in mind.

Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000

Michael Connarty: What human rights assessment she has made of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.

Lynda Clark: I assess the legislative competence of each Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament as part of the process of considering whether to exercise my power under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 to refer a Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That assessment includes a consideration of compliance with convention rights. When a Bill becomes law, my role on devolution issues continues.

Michael Connarty: I am informed that sections 1 and 14 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000 state that any child with a need for special educational provision should be provided with it in mainstream schools. Gordon Jeyes, director of children's services and secretary of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, said that he believes that the UK Government are in breach of the Act because we do not implement it in relation to asylum seekers' children who are held in Dungavel.

Lynda Clark: Let me quote section 1 of the Act to my hon. Friend. It states:
	"It shall be the right of every child of school age to be provided with school education by, or by virtue of arrangements made, or entered into, by an education authority."
	Anyone who believes that there is a difficulty in relation to a devolution issue is perfectly within their rights to raise that, as I have explained.

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since June 2003.

Lynda Clark: Since the end of June 2003 there have been 88 devolution issues intimated to me. As to their subject matter, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing).

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that answer. Will she cast her mind back to the answer that she gave me before the summer recess on partnership law in relation to the reforms to Scottish land law being passed by the Scottish Parliament, and the devastating effect that they are having on Scottish landowners? What representations has she received from those landowners, and will she revise her advice in view of those representations?

Lynda Clark: I am casting my mind back drastically. I remember the hon. Lady's general question, but not the details. So far as I am aware, I have not received any representations since then, but I will certainly check with my office to see whether any have been made. If I think that I need to make changes to any of my views, I shall do so.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—

Judicial Appointments

Paul Goodman: What responses he has had to his consultation on the appointment of judges.

Christopher Leslie: At this early stage of the consultation on the issue of creating a more independent judicial appointments process, a wide range of responses has already been received, including from members of the judiciary, magistrates, solicitors, barristers, academics and members of the public. Consultation closes on 7 November.

Paul Goodman: Given that radical left-wing modernisation and the separation of powers are surely one and the same, will the Minister confirm that there will be no political veto over the appointment of judges—and if not, why not?

Christopher Leslie: The present arrangement has a Cabinet Minister intimately involved in the selection process of the judiciary. That system has produced a judiciary of very high standing and probity, but we feel that it is now an unsustainable anachronism and that we should have more open, transparently independent appointments processes. That is why we want an independent judicial appointments commission, and a number of options have been posited in the consultation paper, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman.

David Taylor: The Minister talks about a more open and transparent system. Is it not the case that, last year, although the Lord Chancellor's Department received 3,600 applications, carried out 1,800 interviews and made more than 750 appointments, a clear audit trail for that process is lacking? Would not such an audit trail help to produce a system that would lead to a more diverse and representative Bench in a rather shorter time than the 10 to 15 years that some commentators believe it will take at the moment?

Christopher Leslie: It is, of course, desirable to have a more diverse judiciary reflecting the broad nature of the population, but we have to have appointment on merit, and this is the best way to proceed. One of the proposals in the consultation document is for a judicial ombudsman to oversee the work of the independent judicial appointments commission, but we believe that the current Commissioner for Judicial Appointments already does a good job of auditing and ensuring that our appointments process is of a high standard.

David Heath: The noble and learned Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said recently:
	"If the Executive can influence who is on the appointments commission and who the commission appoints that is interfering with the judiciary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 113.]
	To ensure that that does not happen, will the Minister ensure that the committee that appoints the commission will not be chaired by the permanent secretary to his Department? If the Secretary of State is to have any role in judicial appointments, should it not be confined to accepting a single name proffered by the commission or, if rejecting it, giving reasons for so doing?

Christopher Leslie: There is an important issue involved in ensuring that advice on appointments from the Crown is given by Ministers, so that Ministers can be held accountable to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, however. The issue of who appoints the appointers is brought out in the consultation document. There is also a proposal in that document for an appointments panel chaired by the permanent secretary of the Department, with a senior judge and another senior non-political figure. We await the responses to see what the reaction to that proposal might be, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

William Cash: The Minister will know that we affirm the absolute necessity of maintaining the independence of the judiciary as the safeguard of the freedom of the people, and of maintaining the freedom of the rule of law from political interference. How can the Government's proposed reforms achieve that? First, the ultimate appointment of judges will be made by the Secretary of State, who, on 14 July, said that he intended to act politically. Secondly, as has been said, the sifting committee will be chaired by his own permanent secretary. Thirdly, far from achieving a proper separation of powers, the proposals remove the constitutional authority of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet, thus enhancing the power of the Secretary of State and thereby that of the Prime Minister—as usual.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should pay a little more attention to the detail in the consultation document. He is wrong, for instance, in saying that we propose that the permanent secretary chair the sifting panel during the selection process. That is simply not correct. We want an independent judicial appointments commission that will undertake the day-to-day process of selection separately. Under the current arrangement, as with that operated by the last Administration, a political Lord Chancellor sitting in the Cabinet—a Minister—undertakes all aspects of the process. We believe that the time when that was justifiable is past, and we want a more independent system. I hope that the Conservative party will add its support for that.

Judicial Reform

Graham Allen: What consultation processes involving hon. Members he plans for his proposals for (a) a Supreme Court, (b) an independent judicial appointments commission and (c) the future of the rank of Queen's Counsel.

Christopher Leslie: The three consultation papers are available to all Members in the Vote Office, and views are of course most welcome as part of the consultation process. We will also endeavour to work closely with the departmental Select Committee, and make all responses available to it at the end of the consultation.

Graham Allen: I commend my hon. Friend for presenting three proposals that appeared in past Labour party manifestos. That is a high strike rate, which I hope my hon. Friend will continue.
	What involvement will there be with Parliament itself during the consultation, and in particular with the new Constitutional Affairs Select Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Would it not be a good idea to involve Members of Parliament, and also to involve members of the public by putting the process online so that everyone could discuss it rather than one or two insiders?

Christopher Leslie: The noises off from the shadow Leader of the House, revolting against the concept of online consultation, clearly reflect his enthusiasm for that particular element of modernisation.
	I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is important for all sections of society to be involved as much as possible—not least hon. Members, who are never backward in coming forward with their views.

Alan Beith: Should not one of the first ways of involving Members through the Select Committee be to take careful note of what the Committee said about the experience in Scotland of setting up a judicial appointments commission? Is it not clear that that body's manifest independence from both the parent Department and the political process has been very important in ensuring its acceptance by the judiciary and others? Is it not also important to resolve the difficulty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which still exists in the Scottish system, of ensuring that the fact that ultimately appointments are made on the advice of Ministers does not enable Ministers to become involved in a process that is supposed to be independent?

Christopher Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. Like the Chairman of the departmental Select Committee, I think it vital that we have a dialogue with the Committee as the proposals evolve. I also agree that it is important to investigate the method of appointment in great detail. According to one model, appointments would go straight from the commission to the Crown; according to another, the single recommendation would go to Ministers and then, formally, to the Crown, which would preserve ministerial accountability to Parliament. That is another important issue with which I know the Committee will be concerned.

Mark Lazarowicz: Notwithstanding the virtues of the Scottish independent system for appointing judges, will my hon. Friend note that in many people's opinion the appointments made by the independent commission have resulted in the appointment of more or less the same type of people as before, although perhaps they are slightly more conservative with a small "c" than their predecessors. Will my hon. Friend draw lessons from that experience when considering the introduction of an appointment system for England and Wales—and, indeed, for the supreme court?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is right: a much more diverse judiciary is certainly desirable. We must preserve appointment on merit, but I do not believe that the two are incompatible. If we have a new judicial appointments commission drawn from a wider spectrum of society, it is more likely that candidates will be appointed from a larger pool, and I hope that that will happen.

Peter Bottomley: The point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) was trying to make is that if we move to a commission-based system, we will be less likely to see some of the bold, good appointments that have been made in the past two or three decades. If the Minister is going to take the Select Committee system seriously, could he try to give the Committee a clear answer as to whether the Prime Minister consulted either the previous Lord Chancellor or the current one before announcing the proposed changes to the appointment of judges?

Christopher Leslie: There are of course always full consultations between all Cabinet members before policy announcements are made, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think otherwise. I disagree with his view that a commission is somehow less likely to appoint bold, more interesting people to the judiciary. There is no evidence for that, and as we develop policy we want to ensure that we have the capability to introduce a diverse range of potential candidates, but also those of the highest possible calibre.

Judicial Appointments

Keith Vaz: How many judicial appointments the Lord Chancellor has made since 15 June.

Christopher Leslie: Since the Lord Chancellor was appointed on 12 June, he has made or recommended 435 appointments.

Keith Vaz: May I, through the Minister, congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his assiduousness in appointing so many people, under a system that the Minister has today accepted is flawed? Given the evidence that the Lord Chancellor gave to the Select Committee, in which he said that he wanted to see a new breed of person appointed to the Bench, could the Minister tell the House how many of those 400-odd appointments accurately reflect the Lord Chancellor's views?

Christopher Leslie: Each of the appointments made is of the highest calibre. I would say not that the current appointments system is flawed, but that there are anachronistic elements, in so far as the system manifestly involves politicians. I believe that we should move away from that state of affairs. There are a large number of appointments, but it is certainly true that different types of people have been appointed, most of whom are magistrates. When the annual report on judicial appointments is published, it will include more detail about the nature of the people appointed.

Court Closures (East Anglia)

Henry Bellingham: What recent representations he has received from magistrates courts in East Anglia about proposed court closures.

David Lammy: There are currently no plans for any court closures in East Anglia, and we have received no representations on this issue.

Henry Bellingham: Surely for justice to be seen to be done, it is highly desirable that most defendants be tried by magistrates as near as possible to the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the majority of members of the lay magistracy joined only because they wanted to sit in courts in their local towns. So why are the Government still giving the go-ahead to the closure of small magistrates courts in small towns—including some in Norfolk—that has taken place during the past six years? Do they not believe in the lay magistracy, and why are they undermining the morale of lay magistrates?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has asked this question on three occasions in the past year and he is about to get the same reply. It is right and proper that magistrates live locally, but it is clear that we cannot have courts in every town. This Government closed six courts this year and seven last year; in the last year of the their Administration, the Conservatives closed 21.

House of Lords Reform

Clive Soley: If he will make a further statement on reform of the House of Lords.

Christopher Leslie: The Government published their response to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform on 16 July. We are considering a variety of the issues raised, and we intend to consult on the role of the appointments commission in the near future.

Clive Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he do everything possible to ensure that the Joint Committee can continue its work? That is necessary in part because there are many, relatively straightforward reforms that we can carry out—not least of which is dealing with Members of the House of Lords who can still peg their seats and legislate, despite having criminal convictions. But more importantly in the long run, reform of the House of Lords has to be agreed between and within the two Houses, and the only way to deliver that is through the Joint Committee's continuing its work, and working by consent within that procedure.

Christopher Leslie: Of course my hon. Friend is right, and the Government are more than content to see the Joint Committee continue its work of examining the issues and recommendations. We are grateful for the work of drafting and producing the second report, to which the Government responded earlier in the year. It was a useful summary of the debate and, as I said in my earlier answer, we now want to consult on the role of the judicial appointments commission for those appointed to the House of Lords. We hope to make further announcements in the near future.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will know of rumours in the national newspapers suggesting that the Government are going to introduce a de minimis Bill, which would effectively bring about a wholly appointed second Chamber. The Government's response to the Joint Committee's paper seemed to be pushing in the same direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that that option received the fewest votes in this Chamber, so will he ensure that it is not the option that the Government bring forward?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend has far too great a stature to comment on rumours surfacing in national newspapers. I shall not do so, and my hon. Friend will have to wait to see what proposals we introduce. We have a new Department and a new ministerial team, and we are keen to move forward. We do not believe that the status quo is desirable, but I repeat that my hon. Friend will have to wait and see what proposals we introduce.

Judicial Reform

David Ruffley: What the Lord Chancellor's plans are for reform of the English judiciary; and if he will make a statement.

Christopher Leslie: The Government intend to establish an independent judicial appointments commission in order to create a more open and transparent method of appointing judges. We also intend to create a new supreme court for the United Kingdom to separate the highest appeal court from the legislature. Consultation on those proposals closes on 7 November.

David Ruffley: Will the Minister confirm that in appointing judges the judicial appointments commission will not operate a quota system—either formally or informally—for certain groups?

Christopher Leslie: Yes, that is absolutely our intention. We want not quotas, but appointments on merit.

John Bercow: On occasions, which are bound to arise, when it proves impossible for the future judicial appointments commission to reach consensus on proposed candidates for appointment, does the Minister envisage that there will be scope for votes?

Christopher Leslie: I presume that it will be for the new independent judicial appointments commission—we have tentatively suggested that it should comprise about 15 members: five from the judiciary, five from the legal profession and five from the non-legal sector—to undertake its own deliberations in the manner that it sees fit. We shall have to see whether that level of detail—providing for equal division—needs to be brought out in the response to the consultation. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for focusing on that specific point.

Supreme Court

George Osborne: What the estimated cost is of establishing and maintaining a supreme court.

Christopher Leslie: As the consultation document on the creation of a supreme court makes clear, we are currently considering options on the accommodation and infrastructure requirements for the new court. Whatever option is chosen, it will have to deliver value for money.

George Osborne: I am disappointed that the Minister could not provide an answer. Surely he should have some idea of how much something will cost before proposing it to Parliament.

Christopher Leslie: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Opposition Whips Office—an immensely important post for him given his quick rise. The new supreme court will need to be housed outside the Palace of Westminster and we shall consult the present Law Lords, among others, on the requirements for accommodation. We do not want the supreme court to be an extravagant institution, but neither should it be done on the cheap. It should be fit for the purposes envisaged for the highest court in the land.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the new system be more expensive?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should have heard the answer that I gave. I do not believe that we should have an extravagant system for the supreme court, nor one put together on the cheap. We want to ensure that the supreme court will be fit for its purposes, so we shall consult those who will work in it and who understand how the highest court in the land will operate on the necessary costs of administration and infrastructure.

Judiciary (Political Independence)

Peter Luff: What recent representations he has received on the protection of the political independence of the judiciary.

Christopher Leslie: We currently have judges of complete independence, probity and the very highest ability. The Government believe that they must continue to be independent, of both the Executive and the legislature. Proposals for an independent judicial appointments commission and a new supreme court have been published. Responses to the consultation documents that were published in July are still being received, as the consultation period finishes on 7 November.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister understand that those of us with experience of other so-called independent appointments commissions, such as those in the NHS—

John Bercow: Or the Whips Office.

Peter Luff: Or the Whips Office, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests. We have seen that the results have been completely distorted by the criteria laid down by Ministers. The commissions cannot be truly independent. I urge the Minister to reflect again on whether the proposals will genuinely enhance the independence of the judiciary.

Christopher Leslie: I understand the warnings from the hon. Gentleman, but surely the House will support moves towards a more independent, transparent, open and accessible appointments system for the judiciary. I believe that that is possible, and so far I have not heard anyone oppose it.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Select Committee Chairmen (Pay Review)

Nicholas Winterton: When he expects to respond to the Senior Salaries Pay Review Body's report on the remuneration of House of Commons Select Committee Chairmen.

Peter Hain: When I laid the SSRB's report on pay for Select Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons before the House on 17 July, I stated that I intended to discuss the matter widely and to reflect on hon. Members' views before deciding on the terms of a motion to be put before the House in the autumn. Subject to the demands of parliamentary business, and to the completion of the examination by the Committee on Standards and Privileges of the issue of Chairmen's outside interests, I hope that we will find time for a debate as soon as possible after the conference recess, and certainly before the end of the Session. It will then be for the House to decide on its response to the SSRB's report.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for that response. Does he accept that the payment of Select Committee Chairmen must not be seen as an extension of patronage? With that in mind, will he consider looking again at how Select Committee Chairmen are appointed, and ensuring that such appointments are made by a committee divorced from the Executive and the Whips Offices? In that way, Back-Bench Members can take control of the process and the remuneration will offer a way to an alternative career structure for Members of this House.

Peter Hain: I very much agree that there should be a properly remunerated parallel career structure. If I may quibble, however, I would not necessarily use the term "alternative". People can move between the two occupations, as we have seen recently. But proper remuneration is important, and that will be a matter for the House.
	On the question of patronage, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who was an excellent Chairman of the Health Committee in a previous Parliament. He gave a very good example of how to defy patronage. [Interruption.] Opposition Members mention my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is indeed an excellent Select Committee Chairman. In a sense, she has found her place by defying any laws of patronage. I do not think that patronage is the real issue. The issue considered by the SSRB was whether remuneration was proper, and in what form it should be implemented.

Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Select Committee on Modernisation's recommendation incorporated direct reference to greater independence and effectiveness in Select Committees, so that Chairmen genuinely earned their salaries? In those circumstances, does he think it proper for a Secretary of State for Defence to lean on the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to try and secure a particular type of questioning in the recent inquiry? Does that improve the Committee's independence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it extraordinary that the evidence placed before that Committee was so lacking in comprehensive coverage of the issue, given what has been exposed by the Hutton inquiry?

Peter Hain: Those matters are, of course, for the Hutton inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman should not demean the role of Select Committees, which play, in investigating and in holding the Executive to account, a vital part that the Government welcome and encourage.

Laptop Computers

Michael Jack: What plans he has to make further recommendations to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the use of laptop computers in Standing Committees of the House.

Phil Woolas: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Select Committee on Information. He is also a member of the Speaker's advisory panel.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made no recommendations to the Modernisation Committee on the use of laptop computers in Standing Committees. He is aware that some Members would like their use to be permitted, but the Chairmen's Panel has concerns about the matter.

Michael Jack: While I thank the Minister for his kind words and his answer, does he not think that it would be timely for the Modernisation Committee to consider the situation now? Use of laptops is permitted in Select Committees, and a recent report has shown their advantages. However, that facility is not afforded to Members undertaking the detailed work of Standing Committees. Does the Minister not think that the time is right to consider that point, perhaps in concert with the Information Committee?

Phil Woolas: At present, that is a matter for individual Select Committees, although I share the view that there may well be advantages to the use of laptops as new technologies develop. The House may be interested to know that there are proposals for Members to have access to PDAs, which I understand to be personal digital assistants. The mind boggles about what the sketch writers will make of that, but new technology has an element of inevitability about it.

Debates Procedure

Julie Morgan: If he will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on procedure in debates on the Floor of the House.

Peter Hain: Although I have no plans to do so, I am aware that the Procedure Committee is examining procedures for debates, and I await its findings with interest.

Julie Morgan: What plans has my right hon. Friend to discuss the introduction of a list of speakers to be published before debates in the Chamber? Does he agree that it would contribute to the enthusiasm of Members taking part in debate if they thought that they had some chance of being called?

Peter Hain: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you may have views on this matter, and I therefore intend to tread warily. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I know that the House of Lords, for example, has always had published lists. The Procedure Committee is considering the matter, and I am sure that you will make your views known in due course, Mr. Speaker.

Patrick McLoughlin: One of the good things to come out of the Modernisation Committee when it was led by the Leader of the House's predecessor was the publication of a parliamentary calendar. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to publish next year's calendar?

Peter Hain: I certainly intend to publish the calendar as soon as possible, once it is clear when the Queen's Speech will be and how the next Session will unfold. We shall do that as soon as possible, because I know that the calendar is useful to Members and to servants of the House.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Might the Leader of the House combine several modernisation techniques so that those of us who have a nasty habit of turning up here to make speeches could in future just read them into the record from some remote spot, saving us from having to come here at all?

Peter Hain: I would much rather hear my hon. Friend's speeches than read them in Hansard. I am sure that the whole House would agree with that.

Bills (Online Pre-legislative Scrutiny)

Graham Allen: How many Bills he expects will have been subject to online pre-legislative scrutiny by the end of the Session; and if he will make a statement.

Phil Woolas: None of the Committees that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills in this Session has undertaken online consultation; nor am I aware of any plans to do so. However, the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill in the previous Session demonstrated that online consultation on draft Bills could be useful. Whether it is undertaken remains a matter for decision by the Committee concerned.

Graham Allen: I took the trouble to write to all Secretaries of State asking whether they would hold any pre-legislative consultation in the next Session, and I received a standard reply from each saying that they do not pre-empt the Queen's Speech. However, as a long list of Bills is being circulated, would it not make sense for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to use that list in talking to Select Committee Chairmen to try to build into their programmes of work serious pre-legislative scrutiny of all the Bills that the House will consider?

Phil Woolas: That is a matter for the House, but the Government recognise the benefits of pre-legislative scrutiny. There have been nine such Bills in the current Session and there were seven in the last Session. It is the Government's desire to facilitate online consultation. As I said, the matter is for the Committees, but my hon. Friend's suggestion seems to have merit within that policy.

Bills (Programming)

Andrew MacKay: If he will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it inquire into the arrangements for programming legislation.

Peter Hain: The Modernisation Committee stated that it will keep the operation of programming under continuing consideration and make further recommendations as it thinks appropriate.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Leader of the House accept that the present programming is not working properly and that all too much legislation is not properly scrutinised, with large sections of Bills not even looked at by the House? That cannot be right, and there is urgent need for change by the time the next Session starts later this year.

Peter Hain: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns and those of many of his colleagues, but I want to put the matter into perspective. Under the previous procedure, prior to programming, large numbers of clauses were not debated or properly scrutinised, which was one of the reasons that we introduced the reform. Although I am always open to suggestions for change, and the Modernisation Committee is keeping the matter under review, we should compare realistically and accurately with what happened before, instead of trying to suggest that the whole situation is worse in respect of scrutiny. No Bill was fully scrutinised under the previous system—that is the issue.

Devolution

Andrew Selous: If he will introduce legislation to prohibit Members for non-English seats in the House voting on matters pertaining only to England.

Phil Woolas: To facilitate for the House, given the lack of time, I simply say no.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that probably nothing is more inclined to bring disharmony between the constituent nations of this United Kingdom than the passing of controversial and unpopular measures, as far as England is concerned, with the support of hon. Members who are not from England? What is he going to do about that?

Phil Woolas: There is a fundamental disagreement. This House is sovereign and each Member of the House is equal—[Interruption.] Well, some may, in their opinion, be more equal than others. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would say to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that they should not be entitled to take part in legislative decisions that affect the United Kingdom as a whole, or indeed England. There is a disagreement.

EU-IGC

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Union's intergovernmental conference, which will begin in Rome on 4 October. Alongside this statement, I have today published a White Paper, "A New Constitutional Treaty for the European Union," in which the Government set out in more detail their approach to the IGC. The White Paper was laid before Parliament at 9.30 this morning, and copies have been made available so that hon. Members could question me on its content. In August, I published a Command Paper, 5897, which gives the full text of the draft treaty.
	The origins of the IGC lie in the unfinished business of the treaty of Nice. Nice settled the simple mechanics of enlargement, but did not focus on how a Union of 25 states could then function effectively. So at the Laeken summit two years ago, EU Heads of State and Government agreed to establish a Convention on the Future of Europe with a view to both improved institutions and a single constitutional treaty.
	Indeed, ever since the 1957 treaty of Rome, Europe's decision-making processes and institutions have not kept pace with the expansion of the EU's borders: for Rome's framework was designed for the six founding countries and it has been struggling ever since to cope with the demands of nine, 12 and now 15 member states. Without reform, we would be likely to see bureaucratic gridlock at 25.
	It is hard to overstate the significance of the enlargement of the EU that will come to fruition next year, which will be three times greater than any previous enlargement. EU membership will be a fitting reward for the courageous steps that eight former members of the eastern bloc have taken since the fall of the Berlin wall to embrace the values of liberal democracy. In addition, the EU will be joined by two nations—Cyprus and Malta—which have long, historical links to the UK and are members of the Commonwealth.
	Enlargement has been supported by successive British Governments, partly out of a sense of obligation to help correct the injustices of the cold war, but also on a pragmatic assessment of our national interest. Eight years ago, one of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Hurd of Westwell, said:
	"enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century."
	It is also a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Britain. With the necessary reforms of the European Union's institutions, enlargement will mean greater trade and investment opportunities for British companies and more jobs for British workers. It will give us more partners in the fight against the problems that cross borders, such as drug trafficking, environmental pollution, international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
	The EU's greatest achievement has been to help to secure an absence of war among its member states. Enlargement will extend that achievement and cement the values intrinsic to peace across the continent.
	Our commitment to a successful enlargement lay behind the Government's positive approach to the Convention on the Future of Europe. From the outset of the Convention, we were clear about the purpose of the new constitutional treaty. We did not want to scrap the Union's existing constitutional foundation, but that is however contained in a plethora of documents, from the treaty of Rome to the treaty of Nice. What we wanted instead was a text that brought those treaties together in a single, more coherent whole. We also wanted a treaty that streamlined decision making to ensure that the Union was able to act effectively with 25 members, and we wanted reforms that would enable the Union to deal with the problems of today, rather than those of 50 years ago, and to ensure that the Union delivers for Europe's peoples.
	The text that the Convention finally agreed in July largely meets those criteria and Britain's interests, as has been widely acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. The Convention, skilfully chaired by President Giscard d'Estaing, has produced a text that is clearer and more comprehensible, but does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the Union. Let me express my gratitude to all Convention members, including our own governmental team, led by the Leader of the House, the parliamentary representatives from both Houses and staff of the House and the other place who did so much to support our parliamentary representatives.
	What I have sought to do in the White Paper is to set enlargement and the new constitutional treaty in its proper context. So in section I of the White Paper, we set out the benefits of EU membership to Britain. Section II deals with changes that have taken place in Europe. Section III explains the process of both the Convention and the IGC, and section IV sets out the Government's assessment of the Convention's outcome.
	Let me summarise our major conclusions. We welcome the fact that the draft brings a sense of order to the EU's hitherto byzantine constitutional structure. It consolidates the Union's existing treaties in a single, logically ordered text, which replaces the Maastricht treaty's elaborate three pillars with a single treaty structure. It streamlines the number of EU legal instruments. As someone who has studied the draft with care, I do not pretend that it is an easy read, but it is a lot better than the texts that have gone before.
	The draft treaty provides for more accountable EU institutions, rooted in the legitimacy of its constituent parts—the nation states. For the first time, we have a clear definition of where the Union can and cannot act. The text makes it crystal clear, in article IX, that the EU's powers derive from the member states and that any power not explicitly conferred on the Union by the member states remains with the national Governments. That article then goes on to establish new procedures for giving national Parliaments an effective role in policing the Commission's legislative proposals.
	Under the draft, contained in article III-160 and a protocol, all such proposals from the Commission have to be scrutinised by national Parliaments for proportionality and subsidiarity, and where the national Parliament objects, the Commission has to take back the proposal for review. That significantly strengthens the powers of national Parliaments. The House will wish to know that the House of Lords European Union Committee, having examined the proposals in draft, concluded that
	"it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the"
	Convention's
	"proposals . . . are adopted".
	We believe that in its present form the text will deliver a more efficient European Union, which is essential to the success of an enlarged Union. It includes a key British proposal: the creation of a full-time chair of the European Council. This will too, in practice, shift authority from the Commission to national Governments. The post would bring greater continuity to the Union's actions and ensure that the agenda decided upon by member states in the European Council was delivered.
	The White Paper spells out our position on the charter of fundamental rights. The Convention text makes it clear in article II-51 that the charter
	"does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined in the other Parts of the Constitution."
	It therefore does not give any new powers to the EU. Member states are affected only when implementing Union law. As for the future of the Convention, the Government will make a final decision on the incorporation of the charter into the draft constitutional treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC.
	Like most other member states, we have reservations about some aspects of the Convention's draft. There are elements in the text that the United Kingdom does not support. There are some areas where the Convention was unable to finalise its proposals, and others that require further technical and legal work.
	In the IGC, we will not support proposals to extend the principle of qualified majority voting to certain key policy areas. We will insist that unanimity remains for treaty change and in other areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of own resources. Unanimity must remain the general rule for common foreign and security policy, as proposed in the final Convention text. We will not sign up to any treaty that does not, in our view, advance Britain's national interest.
	Other member states have their own concerns about the Convention's text. At the European summit in June, EU Heads of State and Governments said that the Convention's draft was a good basis for starting in the IGC, but that it would obviously be for the IGC to make the final decisions. At a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers last weekend, it was clear that many of my counterparts wanted to raise their reservations once the IGC negotiation was under way.
	Let me deal with the question of a referendum. In practice, in the United Kingdom, we have held referendums when creating or joining a new institution, but not on reforming an existing institution of which we are already a member. So, it was right for there to be a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU, and that will be right on whether to replace the pound sterling with the euro. Equally, the previous Government were right to resist referendums on the major constitutional treaty changes in the Single European Act 1986 and the 1992 Maastricht treaty. Moreover, the proposals in the current draft treaty do not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, and on any analysis they involve less change than the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act. The Government have therefore concluded that the right place to decide on any outcome of the IGC is here in this House and this Parliament.
	It is for that reason that we have sought to involve Parliament in the drafting and scrutiny of the process from the outset. Our delegation to the Convention gave regular progress reports to the specially constituted Standing Committee on the Convention. These have been invaluable and it goes without saying that we would welcome further proposals from both Houses and their Committees on the draft text and our negotiating position. Ministers have been held to account by the European Scrutiny Committee here and the European Union Committee in the other place. The European Scrutiny Committee has already produced three reports, and the House of Lords Committee has produced 14.
	As I have already mentioned, I published the draft treaty articles in a Command Paper. Following consultations with, and proposals from, the European Scrutiny Committee, the House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tabled a Standing Order today, which appears on the Order Paper, to establish a Standing Committee of this House on the IGC. This will be closely modelled on the Standing Committee on the Convention, except that it will hear statements and take questions from Ministers rather than House parliamentary representatives, as the Standing Committee did when the Convention was operating.
	Following a very helpful proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), we are supplementing the parliamentary processes on the IGC with an online public debate. My Department has opened an internet discussion forum—[Interruption.] Well, at Question Time there was concern that we should make such issues more accessible and members of the public will be given an opportunity to express their views on the draft treaty.
	It would be rash to predict the ultimate outcome of the IGC. There will inevitably be many twists and turns in a negotiation between 25 countries. Neither am I making any assumptions about the IGC's duration. What matters is that we secure the right text for the United Kingdom and for the EU as a whole. Securing that outcome flows not from seeking isolation within the European Union but from active and positive engagement. There is no need to approach this IGC with the defeatism of the kind that we sometimes hear. We approach it instead with a confident sense that Britain's rightful role is to play an active part in shaping the future of Europe in the interests of the British people. That has been the hallmark of the Government's policy on the European Union since 1997. By working with our European partners, we are ensuring that our vision of Europe—a vision of nation states, proud of their heritage and distinctiveness, working together for the greater peace and prosperity of the continent—guides Europe's future.
	Britain's membership of the European Union is vital for our continued prosperity. To turn our backs on the Union at this historic time of an enlarged Europe would not only betray our national interest but mark a profound lack of confidence in Britain and everything we stand for. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and start on a note of consensus by endorsing his welcome of enlargement. I have to say, however, that if this morning's process is part of his promised consultation, two hours to digest more than 50 pages of closely argued text is a travesty.
	The White Paper is pretty typical of this Government: another dossier with another prime ministerial foreword containing inaccurate statements. In particular, the Prime Minister writes—it was echoed by the Foreign Secretary in his statement—that the proposed treaty reforms
	"do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the Member States and the Union".
	Who do they think they are kidding? That phrase will return to haunt them. No one in Europe believes the tidying-up streamlining argument that we just heard. They see the treaty as a step change along the route to full political union. This dossier is another chapter in the Government's campaign to use smoke and mirrors to hide their true intentions towards Europe.
	The White Paper was originally billed as the bold negotiating stance that the Government would adopt at the IGC. Instead we find that it is a timid attempt to soften us up for eventual acceptance of the draft text pretty well as it stands. That fits with the expectation of other European leaders that the text is unlikely to be changed. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) used to tell us about red lines that would not be crossed, the implication being that the Government would veto the treaty if they were crossed. The words "red lines" are nowhere to be found in the dossier. Instead we learn that the Government will "insist" on certain areas that the Foreign Secretary set out in his statement.
	What does that insistence mean? If the Government's insistence in all or part fails, will they veto the treaty? We have a right to understand what the change of language means. If they will not veto the treaty, their insistence will, as I suspect, prove pretty meaningless. Anyway, most of the areas of so-called insistence are on issues that are already pretty well conceded, although I am sure that in due course they will be publicly spun by the Government as significant victories.
	The Foreign Secretary has previously talked about constructively improving the treaty, and he has also told us again today that he believes in a Europe of nation states. The current draft treaty proposes something very different, namely a distinct political entity with all the key elements of a state, and no amount of prime ministerial bluster can disguise that fact. If the Foreign Secretary means what he says, there should be many more areas of insistence to achieve that goal of a Europe of nation states.
	The Foreign Secretary should insist on opposing the legally binding and enforceable charter of fundamental rights, as the Government promised to do last year, instead of suggesting, as the White Paper does, that it will be left until the end of the IGC to decide what the Government's position will be. We all know what that means. He should insist on removing the explicit primacy of EU law enshrined in a constitution that fundamentally overrides our sovereignty. He should insist on deleting the proposed five-year presidency, which strikes at the heart of the whole concept of intergovernmentalism and marginalises smaller countries.
	The Foreign Secretary should insist on striking out the proposal for a European diplomatic service, which is by definition the tool of a state. He should insist on preventing creeping integration by way of the so-called escalator clauses. He should insist on the principle that subsidiarity and proportionality should be enforceable by national Parliaments. Above all, he should insist that a written constitution is not only, as the Prime Minister told us two years ago, unnecessary, but totally inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom and should be scrapped. Such insistences would be proof of the Government's sincerity when they claim to be against the establishment of a European state, but none of them has been made.
	What has happened to those other changes demanded in former amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath? What has happened to the amendment to article III-162 on asylum, which he described in the amendment as fundamentally important? What has happened to the description of the proposal to create a EU Foreign Minister as unacceptable? If the Government have already backed down on those, as I believe they have, it does not augur well for any of their other areas of insistence.
	This IGC is an unparalleled chance for the Government to act genuinely on behalf of the British people by fighting integration and resisting the onset of a European state. It is a vital opportunity to put forward a positive alternative vision of a new Europe, a genuine partnership of sovereign nations, as Conservative Members have been doing in recent months. [Interruption.] The White Paper tragically fails to do that, and for all Labour Members' laughter, its clear intention is to soften up the British people for the adoption of the constitution and the treaty as they stand, in a cynical exercise that shows yet again why the Government can no longer be trusted.
	This is not so much a White Paper as a white flag, and the Government's docile surrender to the concept of a politically united Europe is a betrayal of trust. They can respond to that charge by letting the people decide who is telling the truth and who is speaking for Britain. A significant number of other European countries will be honest enough to trust their people on this issue in referendums. Why are our Government so frightened of trusting the people?
	Whatever the spin, the changes proposed in the draft treaty are fundamental and constitutional. No Government have the right to agree them without the consent of the people. If they want to regain some of the trust that they have recently lost, they should start by trusting the people in a referendum.

Jack Straw: I was hoping that we might have some forensic comments from the right hon. Gentleman. He complains that he has had two hours to read the document, but I have to say that that is far longer than I used to get when I was in opposition. He has also had two months to read the full Convention text, and it is evident that he has not done so. He sought to create a fantasy of a European superstate, a piece of confection, and then to knock it down.
	The right hon. Gentleman ought to be reading the text in the Command Paper, which is very clear, and, as I said, I published that not two hours but two months ago. Article I-9 in that document is very clear, and in terms of defending the interests of nation states, it is a far better text than that which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues secured in Maastricht. The article makes it clear that the member states confer competences on the Union, not the other way round. Any competences not conferred on the Union remain with the member states.
	The right hon. Gentleman says that the process is creating a European Union. I have to point out to him that that was created by the Maastricht treaty. That was part of the argument. He says that, outrageously, this process proposes to make European law superior to the law of the United Kingdom Parliaments and those of the other 24 member states. He is right to say that, but he forgot to say that that has been the central part of our law relating to the EU for 31 years.

Michael Ancram: You are missing the point.

Jack Straw: I do not think that I have missed the point at all. Thirty years ago, the argument about whether we should join the European Union turned critically on whether the House and the country were willing to accept that where the EU agreed legal changes, they had primacy over the law of this Parliament. What the House decided then, and what the country decided by referendum in 1975, was that European law would indeed have primacy over UK law in order that we were able to share the benefits of EU membership. That was the bargain that was struck, and nothing in this treaty changes the nature of that bargain.
	The right hon. Gentleman then went on about subsidiarity and enforceability. His colleagues in the House of Lords looked at the draft proposal on subsidiarity, and they, not me, complimented that proposal, which is now in the text of the Union, saying that it would shift the balance of power
	"from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the proposals . . . are adopted".
	Obviously the right hon. Gentleman has not read that report or looked at the names of the members of that Committee, but I can tell him that it has five Conservative members, including a distinguished former Chief Whip of this House, Michael Jopling, and someone who is not known for his fantastic enthusiasm for all aspects of the EU, Norman Lamont. At least he had the good grace to recognise that, as the Committee said, this does represent a shift in the balance of power from the Commission to nation states.
	I appreciate the difficulties faced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Here is a man who, in developing his political career, was strongly in favour of the EU. Many of us in the House will remember the dark days of the Conservative party, when, in 1992 and 1993, it was writing an extremely long suicide note. The right hon. Gentleman, along with 12 other members of the current shadow Cabinet, argued passionately against a referendum on Maastricht. He also argued in favour of what was in the Maastricht treaty. In those days, he was even willing—as I am not, and nor are my Government or my party—to contemplate being a member of a European superstate.
	I ask the House to listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's words because they are confusing at first blush. He said:
	"I said at the beginning that I did not want to be part of a European superstate. Equally, I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate".—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 343.]
	That was perhaps a less eloquent part of his speech, but overall he was endorsing Maastricht.
	In this White Paper we have set out in detail not only what is proposed in the Convention but what was decided at Maastricht, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory of Maastricht. It changed the European Community to the European Union and extended the EU's competence to a number of new policy areas, including economic and monetary policy, social policy, education, vocational training and youth, culture, public health, consumer protection, trans-European networks, industry and development. It introduced the co-decision for the European Parliament, a fundamental change in the running of the EU, and extended or introduced qualified majority voting to 30 policy areas. I repeat that on any analysis the Maastricht treaty involved a greater and more significant change to the way in which the Union operates than does that which is before us.
	Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the set of proposals was inimical to the interests of the European Union and should be scrapped. I look forward to hearing from him what his position and that of his party is in respect of the EU. Are they manoeuvring themselves, as many members of the Opposition Front-Bench team are, including the Leader of the Opposition, to a position where they are proposing to leave the EU and to disengage altogether?
	I do not pretend that the EU is perfect—far from it. However, after 37 years of experience, I believe that we are better in it than out of it. We are better making the best of it for Britain in it than out of it. I know that the body that is totally inimical to the interests of Britain is the Conservative party.

Jimmy Hood: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I welcome also what I hope was an open-ended commitment by the Government to parliamentary scrutiny, be it in the Chamber, in Select Committees or in the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference, which he reported to the House today. The European Scrutiny Committee is looking forward to my right hon. Friend giving evidence to us tomorrow on his White Paper, and I look forward to welcoming him.
	I offer one word of caution, and it refers to the Standing Committee on the treaty. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about consulting colleagues who were members of the Standing Committee to learn from the lessons that clearly helped to improve the scrutiny of the Convention? I am sure that those lessons will serve the House well if we consult before the Standing Committee is set up.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I have always believed in open-ended scrutiny of Ministers. I look forward to submitting myself to that process, including before my hon. Friend's Committee tomorrow.
	Scrutiny will need to take place at three sets of levels. One of those levels should be Select Committees, including the one that my hon. Friend chairs. In some specific areas, I do not doubt that subject departmental Select Committees will wish to be involved in examining carefully how various drafts of the text are likely to operate. I anticipate that that will be the case especially in relation to foreign policy and defence. Secondly, there should be scrutiny on the Floor of the House, and thirdly in Standing Committee. As I was not a parliamentary representative on the Convention, I obviously did not attend Standing Committee. However, I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. I accept the need to consult him and his colleagues and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee and yourself, to ensure that the process operates effectively.

Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary was right to shake us out of our domestic introspection by reminding us of the significance of enlargement and the consequences for those countries that have thrown off the yoke of communism and embraced liberal democracy. It is right that we should remember that when we consider the detail as far as it affects ourselves.
	I had no difficulty reading the 60 pages in the time allotted. If I have a criticism of the White Paper, it is that it does not contain much that I have not heard before. Of the 60 pages, only 12 were devoted to the Government's opinion of the Convention text. May we take it that elsewhere will we see a detailed critique by the Government of the terms of the text?
	I agree about the areas that are sometimes described as red lines—for example, tax, social security, defence and own resources. I agree that they should remain the exclusive responsibility of the House. They are a necessary part of the sovereignty of the Parliament to which we are elected.
	As for the charter of fundamental rights, paragraph 103 reads:
	"The Government will make a final decision on incorporation of the Charter into the draft Constitutional Treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC."
	That may not be byzantine, but it is certainly delphic. Do the Government have as a reserve position the vetoing of the whole process if they are not satisfied with the outcome of their negotiations in relation to the charter of fundamental rights?
	Why is it that the Government set themselves so implacably against the idea of a referendum on a treaty that in my judgment raises constitutional implications, not least in relation to the charter of fundamental rights? Surely a Government confident of their own position would be comfortable in seeking the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom.

Jack Straw: On that last point, it is not a question of being comfortable. I am very comfortable with the position that I and the Government have adopted. It is about what is appropriate. I have already said that in this country we have had, and will have in future, referendums when we are joining or, in one case, voting to leave an institution. In a European Union context, it was right to have a referendum in 1975. We should have had one in 1972 or 1973 as we were joining but, as I said, we had one in 1975. It is obviously right that when faced with a new economic institutional proposal—that of whether to join the euro or not—there should be a referendum on the issue.
	The House needs to have some confidence in its own judgments. We have dealt with European Union constitutional treaties—my party has taken a consistent view on them, and I think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party has in the past—by the parliamentary process. I believe that that is the appropriate way forward.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the White Paper does not contain much that we have not heard before. I take it as a compliment that we have at least been consistent in the negotiating approach that we have adopted.

John Bercow: Consistently wrong.

Jack Straw: Consistently right. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will recall, there were four occasions before the summer break when we discussed these matters in great detail. Further detail will be provided about our negotiating position, not least in cross-examination by various Select Committees. I am glad that he endorses our position on the red lines.
	There is nothing particularly delphic about paragraph 103. Given the nature of the charter of fundamental rights, we must ensure that the text properly protects what we want it to protect. We will not be able to make the final judgment on that until we have seen the rest of the text. In other words—the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the veto—nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

George Stevenson: There is much in the Government's approach to the IGC and the Convention that I want to support. However, there is an equal number of issues that I have serious concerns about. The weakest arguments that I find in the Government's approach are those that are deployed against having a referendum. The White Paper is clear that the Convention and the IGC will affect the lives of every man, woman and child in this country and will impact on the way in which we govern ourselves. In these circumstances, and given the fact that many other member states have decided to hold referendums, why are the Government so insistent that the people of this country should not be consulted on the way in which they are governed?

Jack Straw: It is a question of judgment whether the changes in the draft, if they were agreed, would fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between this Parliament, this country and the European Union, and I do not believe that they would. In the White Paper, we have not used the language that he suggested about how the changes will fundamentally affect the lives of people in the United Kingdom.
	It is certainly true that an enlarged Union will fundamentally affect people's lives here, and that is why all parties in the House have been committed to it. It needs to be understood that the argument for the changes is to make enlargement work. However, if it happened that the Convention process ran into the ground and one country or another did not ratify it, then, to put it bluntly, it would not be the end of the world. We would have to get by with Nice. My objection to Nice is that it is unsatisfactory and inefficient, but it is not that there is a different level in terms of the relationship between member states and the European Union and between Nice and what is now proposed, except that under these proposals the European Council Heads of Government will in practice gain more authority with a small "a" because they will have a full-time president who will be able better to match the European Commission. In addition, we have the important proposals in respect of subsidiarity.

William Hague: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that, by holding a large number of referendums over the past six years, the Government have already changed the constitution of this country? Would not other countries have taken more seriously some of the positions that he has now had to abandon if the Government took more seriously the views of the people of this country and were prepared to hold a referendum? Given that the Prime Minister has instead called for parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty—a statement in itself sufficiently remarkable from the Prime Minister that it betrays the absence of other arguments—will the Foreign Secretary commit himself to that treaty being scrutinised clause by clause on the Floor of the House by all right hon. and hon. Members?

Jack Straw: The question of the scrutiny of any treaty proposals will proceed in the normal way and, of course, constitutional matters will be considered in the way that applies to any European Union treaty. I am not going to anticipate the precise nature of the arrangements for that—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] The House knows that, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to proper and effective parliamentary scrutiny.
	We put our approach to the intergovernmental conference to the British people at the last election. We said in our manifesto:
	"Labour wants the next Inter-governmental Conference in 2004"—

William Cash: The manifesto did not say what the constitution would contain.

Jack Straw: I am sorry, but with great respect, the shadow Attorney-General, unusually for him—he gets things wrong, but he at least reads the text unlike his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary—is saying that we never mentioned it. I am quoting directly from the Labour manifesto, a document branded on the hearts of all Conservatives because of the historic defeat that it produced. It said:
	"Labour wants the next Inter-governmental Conference in 2004 to address public concerns about the way the EU works, spelling out in a clear statement of principles what should and should not be done at European level. Labour supports a stronger role for national parliaments in European affairs."
	We have delivered that, and there was no suggestion—we knew that the IGC was coming—in our manifesto that we would go for a referendum, and we all know what the result was.
	May I tell the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that in other countries the view is that Britain did very well in respect of the negotiations? Le Monde said:
	"The British government is pleased with the Convention and has every right to be so. The text meets virtually all its expectations and allays most of its fears".
	Robert Badinter, one of the leading French constitutional experts said that, as a result of the way in which we operated, the constitution for the Europe of the 25 could now be dubbed "la britannique". It may also be helpful to know that when the text was becoming clear, one of the leading federalists, Giuliano Amato, was so sad that he said:
	"I want to kill myself".

John Bercow: Is that intellectually conclusive?

Jack Straw: No, it is just suggestive of the fact that we did rather well in the Convention, and we hope to do even better in the IGC.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I appeal to the House for brief questions and, along with that, brief answers?

Kate Hoey: May I urge my right hon. Friend to look again at the question of a referendum? I cannot believe that, deep down, he believes that the changes that the new constitution will bring about are not worthy of a referendum. Like me, he supported a referendum on Maastricht. A referendum would give us a stronger negotiating position and would mean that, if the people of this country wanted to be committed to the European Union, they would feel that they had the right to support it.

Jack Straw: On a point of fact, I did not support a referendum on Maastricht. The record shows that I was against it and voted against a referendum. On the wider issues raised by my hon. Friend, I have already explained the Government's position. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to look carefully at the text and the White Paper so that they can say where in the text, taken as a whole, there is a fundamental change in the wrong way in the nature of the relationship between member states and the European Union. I frankly think that they will find that very difficult.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Why are the Government spinning the fantastic distortion that they have achieved most of their aims already except for a handful of issues that are still to be decided? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that, in the European Convention, the Government tabled over 200 amendments to the draft constitution? I have the list here. Only 11 were accepted, so what has happened the other 189 issues which the Government opposed? Why has the White Paper downgraded or, in most cases, dropped entirely any reference to all those other issues to which the Government objected? Will the Government drop this absurd strategy of fastening on a handful of red line issues on which they think that they can claim victory, ignoring all the other objections that they made in the Convention and which they are now carefully forgetting?

Jack Straw: We are not forgetting other changes.

David Heathcoat-Amory: They are not in the White Paper.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is making an error in insinuating that the draft from the Convention is the final word—it is not.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The objections are not in the White Paper.

Jack Straw: I am talking about the draft produced by the Convention. The Heads of Government at Thessaloniki said that it was a good basis for starting the negotiations. I am not going to anticipate what will happen at the IGC, but a great many amendments will be submitted by many member states. As for the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic—I shall come back to him if am proved wrong—what often happens in negotiations is that one member state submits language and another member state submits similar language. He will remember—improbably, he was Minister for Europe—that, in the end, as a result of negotiation, language is agreed that is not necessarily the same as that originally submitted, but which is acceptable. I said in my opening statement that there are other areas, which, I am sure, were covered by some of those 200 amendments, that require technical improvements. There are other issues, too, that we intend to raise in the negotiations.

Gisela Stuart: The Foreign Secretary helpfully said that one area on which the Government will insist on unanimity is future treaty changes. In that context, can he help me with what seems to be more than just a linguistic inconsistency? The Command Paper talks about the draft constitution treaty for the European Union and a clear treaty structure. The document that the Convention handed over to the Heads of Government at Thessaloniki referred to a
	"draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe".
	Most of the people who wrote that—I am not one of them—were quite clear that they wished to move away from the treaty structure and establish an independent constitutional structure, which would mean that there would be no future treaty ratifications. If the Government are committed to treaties, what will they do to ensure that a treaty structure remains?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is, in our judgement, a draft constitutional treaty and I have just spotted the fact that that is included on the cover, as provided by the European Convention to which my hon. Friend referred. We are clear that the basis of the European Union must be a treaty basis, and that is why I have spelt out today the fact that we have to keep the veto and proper processes for any treaty changes.

Richard Shepherd: Just before he rose to speak, the Foreign Secretary heard the Deputy Leader of the House assert the sovereignty of the House. That is only meaningful in the democratic age, as Winston Churchill said, as a shorthand for the sovereignty of the people. The Foreign Secretary prayed in aid a referendum that took place over a quarter of a century ago on a very different proposition from that facing the British people and the House today. It is not good enough, and everyone knows that it is not. Maastricht purported to establish things that were irrevocable and irreversible, and they will be included in the constitution. It is therefore imperative that the sovereign people of this country should have the right to judge whether the measures that have been taken in their name in recent years are what they want.

Jack Straw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I was praying in aid the distinction between a referendum on whether to join or leave the European Union and the proposition for a referendum on a constitutional treaty such as this, and saying what that distinction was. In arguing against a referendum, I was praying in aid the precedent of the previous Government—I know that he did not agree with it, but most members of the then shadow Cabinet did so—in deciding against holding a referendum either on the Single European Act 1986, which made profound changes and introduced qualified majority voting, or on Maastricht. I happen to think that that was the right approach and I am surprised that, without any good basis at all, some Opposition Front Benchers have now changed their minds.

Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vision set out eloquently by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is shared by no other country, whether by an existing or accession member of the Union, and that the logic of his shopping list is therefore that of withdrawal?
	In terms of parliamentary accountability, especially for common foreign and security policy and European security and defence policy, what mechanism would my right hon. Friend devise to ensure such accountability beyond Select Committees, the Floor of this House and the new Committee, at an all-European level, including both national Parliaments and the European Parliament? Finally, as the accession of 10 new countries is such a grand thing to celebrate, how does he propose that we in Britain celebrate enlargement next May?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend referred to a vision, but I would say that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has a fantasy about Europe that is not shared by any other country. Indeed, were the Conservatives suddenly to find themselves in government, they would betray Britain's interest and undermine the basis of its prosperity with their current approach. The simple truth of the matter is that the strategy set out by the leader of the Conservative party is, step by step, to put the United Kingdom in a position in which it has to leave the European Union. Indeed, that is what he has often talked about.
	My right hon. Friend made some points about common foreign and security policy—

Donald Anderson: At an all-Europe level.

Jack Straw: That would be done in part by the European Parliament. However, let us be clear that we in the United Kingdom are against any Communitisation of the CFSP and therefore against the European Parliament, which represents voters around Europe but not nation states, having a formal role in the settling of common foreign and security policy.

Robert Walter: In 1975, at the time of the last referendum, we had already been a member of the European Union for two and a half years. The question put to the British people was whether they approved of Harold Wilson's renegotiation. The consequences of their not approving would have been that we either left or sought some other arrangement. The consequences of a no vote in a referendum on this constitution would be very similar, so I do not believe that the constitutional position is any different. However, I do not want the Foreign Secretary to re-rehearse his arguments for or against a referendum. I want him to tell the House whether he believes that, if the Government are successful at the IGC, the British people will support continued membership under the new constitution. If he does, why does he not feel that that could be legitimised by the British people voting in a referendum?

Jack Straw: I am quite clear that the British people support membership of the European Union. Of course, they also have criticisms of the way in which it operates, as do I, but what they want is a Government who stand up for Britain's interests and get the best deal for Britain in terms of prosperity, and also help to secure the peace across Europe.

Bill Tynan: There are many on both sides of the House who oppose our involvement in Europe or have done so for many years, and their position has not changed. However, I welcome the White Paper, as I believe that it is an opportunity to discuss in detail the effects of what has emanated from the European Convention. In the light of the low turnout of 59 per cent. in the previous general election, what level of participation would my right hon. Friend expect in a referendum in this country on the Convention?

Jack Straw: I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that I have no idea about his last point, as it is a hypothesis on a hypothesis. I am grateful for his welcome of the White Paper as an opportunity for Parliament to do its proper job in scrutiny. I find it odd that Opposition Members seem to lack confidence in their ability effectively to scrutinise what the Government are doing.

Angus Robertson: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there is consternation in fishing communities in Scotland about the treatment of fishing policy in the draft constitution. He will also be aware of the views of the European Scrutiny Committee, which is concerned about the prospect of exclusive EU competence in the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Why then did he make no mention of fisheries policy in his statement or in the whole paper? Is it because like the Heath Government, he views fishing as expendable, or as the irrelevance that the current Government treat it as?

Jack Straw: It is neither. We happen to think that fishing is extremely important, and I know of its importance, particularly to Scottish communities.

Angus Robertson: Why is it not included?

Jack Straw: The reason why it is not included—this has been the subject of correspondence between his party and me—is that the key competencies from which restrictions on fishing arise are already exclusive.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, since 1 January 1973, the Common Market and the European Union have not been one great big happy family, as has been evidenced by recent events over Iraq as well? Does he also agree that there has been a loss of manufacturing jobs since 1 January 1973, despite the fact that the great visionaries of the Common Market said that that would not happen? What guarantees can he give us that, in this wonderful new 25-member group, loss of manufacturing jobs will be stemmed? How much more will we be paying on the common agricultural policy as a result of the inclusion of a further 10 members?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct in saying that the European Union has not been one great big happy family since 1973 or even since a more recent date. Whatever the arguments were—I remember them well—about whether we should join the European Union or stay in in 1975, the truth is that it would not be in Britain's economic interest for us to leave the European Union or damage our national interest in it. I am quite clear that unemployment would be higher. There is a separate issue about manufacturing that is not directly related to our membership of the European Union. Overall, we and British work people stand to benefit greatly by the enlargement of the European Union.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in many ways, the protection of British interests about which hon. Members are concerned is best guaranteed by enlargement itself? Will he accept from me that it is welcome that the 10 applicant members will be full participating members of the IGC, but ensure that, having not been part of the negotiations, they will have the right to have their concerns considered? Many of them say that they did not escape from the Soviet Union and acquire their new independence merely to give it up. It is absurd to think that they are signing up in referendums to accession with such enthusiasm in anything other than the belief that their independence is being enhanced.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the position of the accession states. They are proud of their sovereignty and are not going to give it up. That also applies to the other member states. Whatever the question of their involvement in the Convention, those 10 accession countries are now participating on equal terms with European Union Foreign Ministers and will participate on equal terms in the IGC. Under the decisions made at Thessaloniki and Copenhagen, they have the same rights of veto over the final text as any other member state.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I assume that Her Majesty's Government are not supporting a referendum because the history of referendums on Europe is that if Governments do not get the right answer they keep on having them until they do.
	Since health is not one of the areas that is protected by a veto in the document, will the Foreign Secretary confirm in good faith that if the national health service is told that it must agree to a system of patient payment, Her Majesty's Government will not only oppose, but not accept, such instructions?

Jack Straw: Yes.

Boris Johnson: Given that the Government are obviously going to be too cowardly to hold a referendum to consult the British people on this new constitution for Britain and Europe, will the Foreign Secretary at least undertake to abide by the result of an independent referendum, conducted with the co-operation of the Electoral Reform Society and with cross-party support, in which every elector is consulted? Would he accept that result?

Jack Straw: No, especially if it is to be run by The Spectator.

Skin Piercing

Gisela Stuart: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation; and for connected purposes.
	Local authorities currently have the power to regulate any place that performs ear-piercing, tattooing, acupuncture and electrolysis. In recent years, however, a growing number of young people—I confess that I am not one of them—have had various parts of their bodies pierced, and new forms of permanent and semi-permanent tattoos have become popular. I do not share their enthusiasm, but, as my constituency has large numbers of students, I know that such things can become incredibly popular. All such cosmetic procedures involve needles—which, however fine they may be, pierce the skin—and, in the case of semi-permanent tattoos, dyes. Piercing the skin leads to the risk of infections and their transmission. The potential health risks if equipment is not properly sterilised and hygiene is not respected range from the serious, such as the transmission of HIV, hepatitis B and blood poisoning, to the less serious, such as septic injuries and inflammations.
	It is surprising that current legislation does not cover some of the more fashionable and recently introduced body piercing and cosmetic procedures. Ear-piercing is covered, but other parts of the body are not. Similarly, the traditional form of tattooing is covered, but the semi-permanent forms are not. London has had the power to regulate all such establishments since 1991. I wish that power to be extended to all local authorities in England and Wales. Ensuring that all establishments are registered and observe the byelaws and standards of cleanliness would contribute to public health, consumer protection and, in extreme cases, save lives.
	In February, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn)—she is sorry that she cannot be in the Chamber today, as she is away on parliamentary business—secured an Adjournment debate in which she described the tragic case of one of her constituents, Daniel Hindle, a healthy, active teenager with a passion for music. Daniel and his girlfriend went to an establishment in Sheffield, doing what many teenagers do. His girlfriend had her eyebrows pierced and he had his lip pierced. Daniel had been born with a heart defect, but as he had had a healthy and active life he did not think that by having his lip pierced he would risk his health. No one drew attention to any risks, so he went ahead. A few days later, he became ill and was admitted to hospital. He was infected with septicaemia—blood poisoning—which attacked all his major organs and left him so weakened that he could not fight the infection. A few days later, he died.
	There is no suggestion that the studio in Sheffield did anything wrong within the current law. It did not warn him because it had no duty to do so. There was a voluntary code, but there were no regulations. The Bill would change that. Voluntary codes of practice, which are used in some areas, are helpful, but they should be put on to a statutory footing. All local authorities need to have the power of regulation that is available in London, so that establishments that perform all forms of body piercing will issue the appropriate warnings and provide the appropriate safe environment.
	This is not a trivial matter. Fortunately, tragic cases like Daniel's are rare, but complications with less dramatic outcomes are numerous. In the past year, more than 95 per cent. of GPs in Greater Manchester treated complications caused by body piercing, and in 2001, incidences of damage to the ear in England and Wales increased by almost 2,000.
	As I considered the matter more closely, another aspect came to my attention—henna tattoos. Fortunately, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has responsibility for public health, is sitting on the Front Bench, so I hope that she will take note of this. Many families who go on holiday to islands such as Tenerife and Cyprus find numerous stores that offer henna tattoos to children. Because there is no piercing of the skin and henna is a natural dye it is assumed that it carries no risk, but a black dye containing a chemical called paraphenylenediamine—PPD—has caused many cases of allergic reaction. For example, two brothers from Birmingham—one was eight, the other was 10—went at the same time to have a body tattoo in Tenerife. When young Kalum Beckford got home he had developed a tremendous infection as a result of his tattoo and is scarred for life—the Bart Simpson tattoo on his arm will never disappear. His brother, however, suffered no adverse effects. Jade Yates, a child from Staffordshire, will be scarred for life by a henna tattoo.
	The Department of Health already issues guidance to those travelling abroad advising them to be careful about any procedures involving needles. It should also draw attention to the problem of henna tattoos for small children. All the cases that I have come across involve children under the age of 10. It is unclear what causes the allergic reaction; it may simply be their youth. I recognise that henna tattoos are strictly outside the scope of my Bill, but I wish to put the matter on record.
	The gist and the essence of the Bill that I wish to introduce is that local authorities across England and Wales should be extended the powers that London already has to regulate all establishments that perform any kind of tattooing, whether permanent or semi-permanent, and any body piercing, whether to the ear or any other part. That would be a contribution to public safety and health. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Gisela Stuart, Ms Meg Munn, Richard Burden, Mr. Philip Hammond, Dr. Evan Harris and Ms Ann Coffey.

Skin Piercing

Ms Gisela Stuart accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 155]. Opposition Day

[15th Allotted Day]

Military Situation in Iraq

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the military situation in Iraq.
	The motion is not designed to divide the House. It is a sad fact that the debate has been made necessary by a combination of the reluctance of the Secretary of State for Defence to make a proper oral statement to the House yesterday about the military situation in Iraq—[Interruption.] We received a pretty strong impression that the Government would try to shelter the Secretary of State by whichever means they could. The debate is also rendered necessary by the fact that post-conflict occupation of Iraq is proving a very different experience from what was anticipated.
	First, nothing should detract from the huge achievement of the British, American and other coalition forces earlier this year. American and British forces achieved their military objectives with extraordinarily few civilian casualties. In particular, the painstaking way in which 7th Armoured Brigade and 16th Air Assault Brigade took Basra and the surrounding towns will go down as a new textbook standard for how to fight a 21st-century war. We remain in no doubt about the prize that the military victory represents for freedom, regional and global security in the long term and, most immediately, the long-oppressed people of Iraq.
	We do not resile from the achievements of our armed forces or our support for the decision to go to war. We should not dismiss what has been achieved since the end of the combat phase. The leader who possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, never abandoned the ambition to obtain chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities and defied the United Nations to the end in his attempt to achieve his objectives, is gone. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror. Many key figures in his evil regime have been tracked down, killed or captured, including his two notorious sons.
	We should welcome and acknowledge that, throughout Iraq, 37,000 Iraqi police have been trained or retrained and are now taking on their proper role. A new Iraqi army is being recruited, trained and equipped and will progressively take on at least a share of the security role. Thousands of tonnes of arms and ammunition have been seized throughout Iraq and destroyed.
	Politically, a 25-member national governing council has been established and will create a preparatory commission to write a constitution. There are municipal councils in all major cities and 85 per cent. of towns, thus enabling Iraqis to take responsibility for managing local affairs.
	That precious progress should confirm to anybody who cares about fundamental human rights that the terrible price of even the limited war was worth it. Moreover, there can be no going back.

Llew Smith: On the price of the war, how many Iraqi civilians were killed or injured as a result of it or its aftermath?

Bernard Jenkin: The number of Iraqi civilians who were killed during the conflict is a tiny proportion of Iraqis and other civilians who were killed by Saddam Hussein during his reign of terror. That should occupy the hon. Gentleman, who has a record of speaking up for human rights in the House.
	There can be no going back.

Alex Salmond: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), I believe that the generally acknowledged figure is more than 6,000.
	I do not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), since he is trying to support and oppose the Government at the same time. However, he said that things had not turned out as expected—expected by whom?

Bernard Jenkin: I shall deal with that later. It should be possible to criticise some Government actions and support others. People would have more respect for politics in this country if it were more constructive than destructive.
	As one of the occupying powers, the United Kingdom has a moral and legal obligation to see through the political, social and physical reconstruction of Iraq. In the British sector, progress is due almost entirely to the extraordinary dedication of our armed forces on the ground. When I visited 7th Brigade headquarters in May, soldiers were not simply providing security but restoring utilities and public services, providing medical assistance, restoring local health care facilities and helping local people to reopen schools, community centres and even local newspapers. They were rationing fuel, taking food and potable water to where it was needed, running the railway system from Basra to Umm Qasr and even the banking system. The latter involved a daily decision by the responsible officer about the way in which to control the quantity of money in circulation to prevent inflation.
	However, there are clear limits to the amount that soldiers can be expected to achieve. In May, our officers on the ground were asking, "Where is the Department for International Development?" When my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary visited at the end of July, they were asking the same question. Precious little genuine construction has been taking place.
	My right hon. Friend has also tabled a written question asking how many contracts have been let and are in progress. If the Secretary of State for Defence can provide an answer today, I am sure that it will be illuminating. Lack of tangible improvements in living conditions in Iraq is increasing Iraqi frustration with and cynicism about the coalition, and creating ever more challenges for our armed forces.
	British commanders warned in May and July that remnants of the ousted regime, backed by terrorists from outside Iraq, would become an increasing threat. According to some reports, hundreds if not thousands of insurgents from Saddam Hussein's former Government have organised into cells, especially in the Sunni-dominated areas in and around Baghdad. The nature of their resistance is clouded by the presence of hundreds of criminals freed from Iraqi jails just before the war and as many as 1,000 foreign fighters, mainly Islamic militants, who have filtered into Iraq from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan. Some are suspected of direct ties to al-Qaeda. They have been getting better organised and play on the widening disillusion among ordinary Iraqis.
	Why did Ministers apparently ignore those warnings? What intelligence existed before the conflict to show that armed opposition would become a problem afterwards? We have had to accept the terrible news of further British casualties, and I am sure that all Members want to pay tribute to our servicemen who have been killed in the course of their duties and extend our deepest sympathy to their families and friends.
	The Government are sending reinforcements when our armed forces are already overstretched and trying to recover their readiness for future military operations. Although increased military capability is clearly necessary to deal with the increased terrorist threat and the continuing burden of so many civilian tasks on our soldiers in Iraq, the reinforcement underlines the fact that the post-conflict plans, if they existed, have gone wrong.
	Before the conflict—I quote my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary—we made clear what had to happen before any military action:
	"We need to hear from the Government that there is a blueprint—that there are plans and resources—so that a democratic, prosperous and renewed Iraq can quickly enter the family of nations and the global economy."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 39.]

Geoff Hoon: I did not catch whether the hon. Gentleman said that the Government were right or wrong to send extra forces to Iraq at this stage.

Bernard Jenkin: I have made that perfectly clear and I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not noticed. We support his decision but the reasons for its necessity are worth probing. If he is trying to reduce our military commitments and has withdrawn forces from Iraq only to have to start sending them back a few months later, I suggest that something has gone wrong. Does he deny that?

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government's decision to send extra forces, does he accept that it does not help the armed forces if he makes erroneous claims about their being overstretched?

Bernard Jenkin: I seem to recall the recently departed Chief of the Defence Staff pointing out that it would take some 18 months for the British armed forces fully to recover their readiness for future military operations of the kind that we saw earlier this year. Perhaps the Secretary of State has forgotten that discussion. Perhaps he was not at that particular meeting, but it was certainly widely reported in the press. It is well understood that, with such a high proportion of the British Army committed to military operations, its training and readiness cycle is under significant strain. More particularly, on a personal level, many members of the armed forces have had their leave cancelled or their training delayed, which affects their personal morale and capability. If the Secretary of State is in denial about the problem of overstretch in the armed forces, I fear for their future.

Paul Keetch: The shadow Secretary of State has detailed some of the visits that he made after the war and the discussions that he had with our military commanders about the prospect of civil disintegration in Iraq. Did he, however, raise his concerns about such a prospect when he visited our troops before the conflict, both in theatre and outside, and when he had discussions with the Secretary of State at that time?

Bernard Jenkin: I did not think that front-line commanders preparing for a conflict would have to worry about what the Department for International Development and the Government back home should have been worrying about. They were more concerned about whether there were going to be enough chemical suits or whether the food was going to be delivered on time to their soldiers, and about some of the other problems that our overstretched logistics were presenting to them.

Paul Keetch: I would like to press the hon. Gentleman on this point, because I am aware that he visited the Gulf before the war and that he had discussions with the Secretary of State at that time. The commanders certainly expressed to me their concerns about what might happen after the war. We probed that matter and, indeed, went to the United States and spoke to representatives of US Central Command about it. Did the Conservative shadow Secretary of State carry out the same exercise?

Bernard Jenkin: We had a whole debate in the House—in January, I think—on post-conflict planning. It was then that the Government gave us assurances that planning would be in place, and it is for them to explain why those plans have turned out to be so different.
	Increased military capability is clearly necessary to deal with the increased terrorist threat and the continuing burden that so many civilian tasks place on our soldiers in Iraq. But this reinforcement underlines how the post-conflict plans have gone wrong. The Prime Minister assured the House on 3 February that he had to have a plan
	"every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
	I questioned the Secretary of State for Defence on 3 April, during the conflict, as we became more concerned about the lack of preparation, but the only assurance that he would give about his "ambition" for post-conflict Iraq to be run by the Iraqi people was that it was just that: an ambition. There was no sign of a plan.
	We now know from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) that there was no plan. What does the Secretary of State have to say about that? Why on earth was the right hon. Lady allowed to stay in her post month after month, when she was so clearly seeking to obstruct the Government's policy? This underlines how weak the Prime Minister has become in his own party and his own Government. Presumably the Defence Secretary had discussions with the right hon. Lady, then his counterpart at the Department for International Development, about post-conflict reconstruction. What on earth did they discuss? Was he aware that there was no plan, when he committed British forces to this operation? More importantly, is there a plan now?
	Yesterday's written statement says that
	"the full scale of the requirement"—
	for reinforcements—
	". . . has yet to be developed".
	It goes on:
	"The military capabilities needed will be identified as the detail of the plan's implementation takes shape."
	Does this mean that there is still no fully formed plan? If we are committing further UK forces, what exactly are we committing them for? The Secretary of State's statement tells us that the requirement is
	"driven by initiatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Department for International Development (DFID) to accelerate reconstruction activities in Iraq".—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2WS.]
	That is a laudable aim. The Foreign Secretary told BBC Radio 4 this morning:
	"The key task there is to make use of these troops to get the infrastructure back up and running."
	Will the Secretary of State explain what is meant by that?
	There is an urgent need for increased security, increased patrols, better protection of key points, convoys and installations, and better intelligence as well as a need to improve border security, disarm rebels, mediate between warring Iraqi factions and speed up the recruitment and training of the Iraqi military. Our soldiers are fighting a classic counter-insurgency war, for which their training and experience have well prepared them. Their priority must be to kill or capture the terrorists, but are we to believe the Government when they say that they are increasing the burden of essentially civilian tasks for our troops? The fact is that the reconstruction effort has been painfully slow, and rectifying that is a key priority in restoring Iraqi public confidence in the coalition provisional authority. Where are the civilian agencies and contractors that should be undertaking these tasks?
	Will the Secretary of State tell us whether there is a clear plan? If there is, please will he publish a suitable summary of it for the House? Unless he can do so, in the light of the months that have already passed with so little reconstruction activity, why should we believe his assurances that any plan exists at all?

George Foulkes: Did not the shadow Secretary of State sit through the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday, in which he went through plan after plan? [Interruption.] He did. He said, for example, that all 240 hospitals in Iraq are operating. That is probably better than France, considering the way things are at the moment. The Foreign Secretary outlined detailed plans yesterday. It is the shadow Secretary of State who seems to be in denial.

Bernard Jenkin: It might be the root of the problem that the Foreign Secretary's idea of detail is very different from ours. A few sketched aspirations do not constitute a strategic plan. There is a case for the Government publishing a proper document that includes details of how they plan to move forward and that sets out the military tasks rather than the civilian tasks that they expect our armed forces to undertake. I can tell the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that there are people in the armed forces who are very worried about the lack of a strategic plan and about what the Government are taking on in Iraq without such a plan.

Harry Cohen: Does the hon. Gentleman favour DFID employees and non-governmental organisations operating in Iraq when the security situation is not safe? If not, why is he criticising DFID?

Bernard Jenkin: I favour our military forces concentrating on the security tasks, so that those people can enter Iraq safely and carry out their tasks. That means that DFID will have to co-operate actively with the British armed forces and that the NGOs will have to work closely with our armed forces on the ground. That is the only way to improve the situation, rather than dumping on our soldiers all the jobs that they cannot do.

Alex Salmond: We are witnessing the collapse of the pro-war coalition. Did it never occur to the hon. Gentleman, or to any Conservative Front Bencher, that given that the Government deceived the country over the reasons for going to war, they might well also have deceived us over the after-war preparations?

Bernard Jenkin: I am not here to play politics in this debate. I am here to hold the Government to account for their failure to plan properly for post-conflict Iraq. I am therefore asking the Secretary of State to publish a plan, perhaps in co-operation with his counterpart at DFID.
	The Government have clearly been involved in promoting good will between the United States and our other allies in the United Nations. We certainly support a greater role for the United Nations if it will bring other nations in to support the coalition's effort to improve security, provided that there remains a coherent single military command, which, naturally, would be American. Will the Secretary of State spell out exactly what increased role for the UN he envisages, and how it will affect the conduct of military operations in Iraq?
	The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has stated that the latest draft resolution contains
	"invitations, direction, and other ways of inserting the UN in the development of a new Iraqi government".
	If this is still not enough to appease French anti-US sentiment, what consideration has been given to a lead role for NATO? NATO is successfully leading the peacekeeping force in Kabul, and it has the experience and expertise to lead multi-national military operations in war-torn countries. There is great confidence and expectation at NATO headquarters that it should play a role. NATO has already been assisting the Polish armed forces in Iraq; moreover, it could decide to lead peacekeeping forces on the basis of a decision involving 18 rather than 19 in order to exclude any French obstructionism.
	The prerequisite for avoiding what the Foreign Secretary's memorandum described as strategic failure in Iraq is the restoration of personal security, along with a tangible start on the rebuilding of Iraq. If we fail to achieve that soon, it will be difficult for genuine political reforms to take hold, and the political liberation from Saddam Hussein will be in danger of becoming the kind of foreign occupation that the Iraqi people resent and for which we have no ambition.
	Iraq is already a magnet for terrorists who want to have a go at United States or United Kingdom soldiers. The horrific attack on the United Nations confirms that they want to destroy anything associated with the values of democracy and freedom. We cannot let them win.
	There is every reason to be optimistic about the future of Iraq, provided that there is coherent planning and determined implementation. That holds out the prospect not just of democracy and prosperity for the Iraqi people for the first time, but, with all eyes in the middle east focused on Iraq, of a transformation of security throughout the region. The Government must convince the British people that those prizes are worth the money, the sweat and even the lives of the hard-pressed men and women of our armed forces. They have our admiration and good wishes as they face the challenges ahead.

Geoff Hoon: Throughout the shadow Defence Secretary's speech, I hoped to hear one constructive suggestion of something that the official Opposition might do that would differ from the policy that the Government have pursued. Not once, in any part of his speech, was there the slightest indication that they would do other than pursue that policy.

Bernard Jenkin: I will tell the Secretary of State what we would have done differently. We would have had a plan at the outset for the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. The Government clearly have no such plan, as we have been told by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short).

Geoff Hoon: I will deal with that point in a second.
	The House is all too aware of the tragic events in Iraq over the summer months. The bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August, in which the UN special representative Sergio de Mello, Fiona Watson and 19 others died, was a horrifying attack on an organisation dedicated to helping the Iraqi people. The bombing of the Imam Ali mosque in An Najaf, which killed more than 100 innocent people, demonstrated the contempt in which those responsible hold the future of Iraq and the lives of even their fellow citizens. No less tragic are the deaths of UK and other coalition troops, and the deaths of those—including members of the new Iraqi police force—who have been targeted for working with the coalition. We are determined to find those responsible for the atrocities and bring them to justice, whether they are former regime loyalists or members of other extremist groups. We will not let them succeed in their efforts to destabilise Iraq.
	The security situation in Iraq is undoubtedly difficult. We face challenges even in the south, where Shi'a hatred of Saddam and the Ba'ath party has generally made the population more welcoming of the coalition's presence. Organised crime has increased since the collapse of the old regime, partly because of the amnesty that Saddam granted to prisoners as coalition forces entered Iraq. Sabotage, copper theft and fuel smuggling are all damaging the local economy, and the consequent need to guard infrastructure until the Iraqis are fully able to do so for themselves diverts effort from the primary task of creating a generally more secure environment.
	Yesterday I told the House of the outcome of the formal review of UK forces and resources in Iraq undertaken by the UK divisional commander in theatre. That review identified an immediate requirement for two additional battalions, 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry and 1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets, together with some additional specialist personnel. Those additional forces, numbering some 1,200 people, are now being deployed to Iraq. Indeed, the 1st Light Infantry Company arrived in theatre over the weekend.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State give an indication of how many more troops he expects to send to Iraq in the next few months, under whose command and for how long British troops will be in Iraq, and when he expects all British and American forces to be withdrawn and to end the colonial occupation of the country?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's conclusion, but I will certainly deal with his questions during my speech.
	The extra forces will give commanders in theatre a range of additional capabilities to meet the growing number of military tasks that we face. Those tasks will include providing the coalition provisional authority with additional protection and improving our information-gathering capability in the divisional area of operations. Crucially, our extra personnel will also be involved in initiatives such as the training of additional indigenous Iraqi security organisations, in particular the Iraqi civil defence corps. Plans are being developed for a significant acceleration of the forming of 18 battalions of the ICDC, and we envisage their being able, over time, to take over many tasks from coalition forces.
	It should be emphasised that we are deploying additional forces to Iraq to allow commanders to undertake more military tasks. The situation in Iraq is constantly evolving, as are the kinds of tasks being undertaken by UK forces.

Alex Salmond: I thought that the reason for deploying extra forces to Iraq was to avoid strategic failure, to quote the Foreign Secretary. But given that it was the Government's bypassing of the processes of the United Nations that led us into this morass, might not ceding full authority to the UN now help us to get out of it? If the Government do not do that, we will face not strategic failure but the needless loss of many, many more lives.

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that we bypassed the United Nations; and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, discussions are taking place again in the UN about a further resolution to support the effort being made by the international community in Iraq.
	At the end of July, General Lamb's review concluded that force levels were about right for the tasks at that time, although we rebalanced them slightly with the deployment of a small additional number of troops. That shows that we keep force levels under constant review to ensure that we can move the right capabilities into theatre at the right time to undertake tasks as they arise. Our flexible approach allows us to minimise the effect on our forces by ensuring that troops who do not need to be in Iraq can take some well-earned time off. I am sure the House agrees that it would be wrong to keep troops away from their families for any longer than necessary. We will continue to keep our force levels under review and to adjust our force numbers as necessary to meet United Kingdom and coalition military objectives.
	We also intend to deploy a number of armoured patrol vehicles at the same time as the additional troops. That, too, is a requirement identified in GOC 3 division's review of the evolving situation in Iraq and the likely future capability requirements for UK forces. A full investigation of the incident that led to the tragic deaths of three members of the Royal Military Police on 23 August is continuing, but commanders constantly review the security situation, adapting protection measures to reflect different circumstances.
	We have always said that local commanders are the people best placed to identify the capabilities that they require and how to use them. It is obviously crucial for service personnel to be issued with the right equipment, but force protection is as much about tactics, techniques and procedures as it is about specific items of protective equipment. While inevitably carrying an inherent risk, those tactics—described by some as a softly, softly approach—have been tried and tested in operations around the world and are crucial to achieving our objectives in Iraq.
	No one ever suggested that it would be easy to restore stability in Iraq, certainly given the time frame that we have had since the end of hostilities. In the south particularly, the basic utilities—power and water supplies—were in a dreadful state as a result of the former regime's policy of deliberate neglect. The situation is now further complicated by looting and sabotage. I should emphasise, however, that that is the activity of a small criminal minority, not the population of the south as a whole.

Alice Mahon: I have been talking to some young people who have just returned from serving in Basra. What those soldiers have told me in my surgery certainly does not reflect the rosy picture that the Secretary of State paints of the south. Three soldiers who had done a six-month stint out there said that pressure is being brought to bear for them to go back. They said:
	"The situation is getting much worse. They tolerated us at first; now they deeply resent us."

Geoff Hoon: I was not painting a rosy picture; indeed, I went to some lengths to point out the difficulties faced by our forces in the south. Equally, I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the situation is getting significantly worse. The great majority of the population in the south are very supportive of the coalition's presence and understandably simply want basic infrastructure—fuel, power, water—of a standard that we would expect, compared with the standard that they suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime. I shall return to that issue in a moment.

Bernard Jenkin: I do not necessarily disagree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he clarify what the Foreign Secretary meant when he said on the radio this morning that the key task is to make use of these troops to get the infrastructure back up and running? Can he confirm that, as he seems to be saying, British armed forces will be concerned with security tasks and military training to enable the civilian agencies and contractors to come in, rather than with providing soldiers to do civilian jobs?

Geoff Hoon: Essentially, there is a need to ensure adequate power, for example. That can be achieved by moving in mobile generators, but there is not a lot of point in moving such generators in to the south of Iraq if they are then stolen and the metal sold in the scrap metal markets of Kuwait. The forces will be working with those providing the generation capability to ensure that such capability is providing electricity, not simply disappearing from the south.

Llew Smith: Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government can provide precise information about the number of our armed forces who were killed or injured as a result of the war and its aftermath, but cannot provide similar information about the number of Iraqi civilians killed or injured as a result of that conflict?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend finds that question so difficult—I would have thought it self-evident that we keep a very close track of those whom we ask to perform tasks on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. It is obviously more difficult to identify with precision those who are killed in the course of a conflict, especially civilians. I would have thought that the answer is self-evident.

David Winnick: Although, as I said yesterday, I would wish to see many more countries involved in addition to those that already have troops in Iraq, is there not one fact that every single critic on both sides of the House must answer? How could such a murderous dictatorship, responsible for the murder and often brutal torture of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, be destroyed other than through what has happened in the past few months?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has been a consistent supporter of the Government's position and I am grateful for his observations. Above all else, whatever the difficulties and problems with security and the basic infrastructure, those who visit southern Iraq all say the same thing: Iraq is an enormously better place now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Those people know that, and they are enormously grateful to the coalition and for the efforts that have been made.

Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why any other country—France, for example—should send troops to Iraq, given that President Bush made it clear that control of the occupation will be fully under the United States, and that he is not prepared to cede an inch of that?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend seizes on one particular example—France—overlooking the fact that the great majority of European nations are supportive of the coalition's position, and that up to 30 countries have sent forces. In a sense, it is for him to ask why all those countries are willing to help. Indeed, more countries have indicated their willingness to help, subject to a further United Nations resolution. There is a strong international coalition that wants the problems of Iraq to be resolved. I repeat to my hon. Friend the point that I made yesterday: whatever his doubts about the situation leading up to the conflict, and about the conflict itself—I recognise that he had them—surely he and all of those who oppose the conflict must recognise that the situation now requires that we make a determined effort to restore Iraq to the international community, and to provide precisely the structures that we are putting in place to allow Iraq's people not only to take responsibility for their own affairs, but to rebuild their country.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State think that the United States' position might change if countries such as France and Germany decided to deploy the quantity of troops that the Americans have stationed in Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: It is a fact that about 140,000 US troops are currently in Iraq, which says a considerable amount about the United States' determination to rebuild that country.

Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept the words of Major Ivor Morgan, a constituent of mine who is serving in one of our field hospitals in Iraq? In writing from that field hospital, he makes it clear that the armed forces and Great Britain have a role—to give back to the people of Iraq what we all enjoy in England, namely, a life in which all people are free from tyranny, live equally and have choice, and live without fear where democracy exists. He wants to make sure that we all accept that this is an appropriate role for the armed forces, and that we support it.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot improve on the comments that she has passed on to the House.
	A few moments ago, I pointed out to the House the importance of working with an international coalition. As I said, it involves some 30 countries. Seven countries have already deployed forces under the United Kingdom's Divisional Command, making a valuable contribution to the provision of security. To accuse the coalition of losing the peace, as some have done, is to ignore the real progress that we and the Iraqi people have made, in spite of the difficulties. It risks the assumption that the terrorists who blow up the United Nations building or the Baghdad police headquarters somehow speak for the Iraqi people. They do not: on the contrary, the majority of Iraqis support the coalition and are delighted, as I have said, that Saddam has gone.
	Most of Iraq is calm. Newspapers, shops, markets and many other aspects of normal daily life are flourishing. Children will soon be returning to school after their summer break. The coalition has recruited and trained 37,000 police; a facilities protection service that is some 14,000-strong is designed to guard Iraq's economic infrastructure from looting and sabotage; and there are also 2,500 border guards. A further increase in the number of these Iraqi security forces is a key priority for the coalition in the coming months. In addition, coalition forces are working with and supporting Iraqi leaders at both local and national level.
	The Iraqi governing council, the establishment of which was welcomed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1500 as an important step towards the formation by the Iraqi people of an internationally recognised Government, has established a preparatory constitutional commission. This commission will put forward recommendations on the democratic drafting of a new constitution for Iraq—one that will enshrine human rights, transparency and justice for all of Iraq's ethnic and religious groups. The council has also sworn in a Cabinet of Ministers that is representative of Iraq's differing ethnic and religious groups. This is a major step forward in the process of transferring political control back to the Iraqi people. Our aim—the aim of all of those working together for Iraq's future—is to maintain this momentum, while building the secure environment within which progress in other areas can be made.
	Ultimately, the key to Iraq's success will be political and economic development. While UK forces have so far done all that they can to repair waterworks and power lines, we need to make more rapid progress on rebuilding Iraq's basic infrastructure. We must also ensure that the Iraqi people feel involved in this reconstruction process. The riots in Basra a month ago required careful handling.

John Smith: In encouraging the Iraqi people to participate in reconstruction, it must be appreciated and recognised that they suffered for more than 20 years—a period in which nobody was brave enough to do anything unless it came as a Ba'ath party order. That factor has to be built in in asking the Iraqis to take the initiative. It will take time.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He provides the answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who spoke about an occupation. Surely even he would recognise—he argues consistently in the House in favour of democracy, respect for human rights and so forth—that the position in Iraq has improved enormously. Surely he would not prefer the people of Iraq to go back to the sort of society in which they lived under Saddam Hussein. We can all unite on that argument. I would not suggest that we can all agree on why military action was taken in the first place, but even from the perspective of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, what we are now doing is the right thing, given the need to improve the lives of the Iraqi people.
	I was dealing with the position in Basra a month ago. There were riots, which required careful handling. I pay tribute to the sterling effort of the coalition forces to engage with local political parties and the protesters themselves, and to distribute emergency fuel supplies, which prevented further unrest. The incidents demonstrated the impact that infrastructure issues can have on security. Progress on those questions will be only short lived without accompanying progress on improvement in those basic facilities.
	Consequently, in southern Iraq, we will make a major effort to repair the damaged infrastructure, combining the expertise of the military, the Department for International Development and CPA South. The sum of £20 million has been allocated to fund the initial stages of that work, which will deliver a more stable power supply, improved fuel availability and lead to a significant improvement in the delivery of water services to all sections of the population. Critical to the project's success will be the enabling military support that we provide. The required military capabilities will be identified as the detail of the plan's implementation takes shape.

Mark Francois: It is noteworthy for the whole House that when the Ministry of Defence needed to send more troops—another 2,000 or so—at short notice, it was often the military battalions that were despatched. We are all aware of the overstretch implications for the Army in general, and the infantry in particular, as a result of the present difficult position. In order to avoid any sapping of morale, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity this afternoon to scotch the rumours circulating within the Ministry of Defence that there are plans afoot to reduce the number of regular infantry battalions? Our recent experience shows that we desperately need those troops, so I hope that the rumours will be laid to rest now.

Geoff Hoon: Recent times have seen a significant increase in the infantry forces available to the Army—progress that I greatly welcome. Many young people seeing the success of our armed forces in a series of different operations want to be involved. As I told the House yesterday in Defence questions, we need constantly to review our position. There are no plans along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested, but as I promised the House, a White Paper will be published in due course, in which we shall set out our short-term future direction for equipment and other aspects of the organisation of our armed forces.
	I announced yesterday that we are taking steps to identify and reduce notice to move for some additional headquarters personnel in certain units. That will allow further deployments as rapidly as possible in response to the accelerating programme of work.
	The Government have set out their vision for Iraq and the Iraqi people. In the document published on 16 March, we looked to a future in which Iraq would become a stable, united and law-abiding state, welcomed back into the international community and providing effective and representative government for its own people. Our commitment to that goal remains constant and we will maintain the necessary military forces in Iraq for so long as is required to achieve it.

Paul Keetch: May I begin by paying tribute to the brave men and women who are risking their lives to bring peace and stability to the Iraqi people, and pass on the condolences of all on the Liberal Democrat Benches to the families of those who have died recently in the conflict? The current military situation in Iraq should come as a surprise to no one. No one expected the war to be easy, but the warnings about the potential difficulties of the post-conflict phase, and the tremendous difficulty of winning the peace were sounded loud and clear before the fighting began—even from within the US and British Governments. UK forces are performing their work in Iraq with tremendous skill, but they face a difficult and complex campaign. Parliament and this country were split over the decision to go to war when we did, but now that British forces are in the country, we support them and hope that they will succeed in their mission to bring peace and stability to Iraq. No reasonable person would oppose the plans for improving security in that country.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman do us the favour of explaining exactly the Liberal Democrat position on the war in Iraq? I recall standing alongside his leader on 15 February in Hyde Park to oppose the bombing and invasion of Iraq. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that British troops should stay for ever more in Iraq and that he supports the Iraq war, or is the Liberal Democrat position to bring the troops home? I think that we deserve to know.

Paul Keetch: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we, like most reasonable people, support the Geneva convention. Britain and America are occupying forces. We invaded Iraq and have the responsibility to stay there to resolve the situation. If the hon. Gentleman will give me the time, I shall move on to explain the Liberal Democrat position—it is different from the Government's—on how that should be achieved.
	No reasonable person should now be calling for the troops to be withdrawn. Our reservations at the time about the difficulties of winning the peace and the lack of international consensus about the terrible costs of war led us, along with brave people from both sides, to vote against the Government. However, those decisions were taken, and now that the main conflict is over, securing stability and democracy in Iraq is in the interests of the whole international community. There are difficult and dangerous problems in Iraq and we should be trying to make the best of resolving them. An unstable Iraq is a danger to the region and a danger to the world. Iraq may not have been a hotbed of terrorist activity before, but it is in serious danger of becoming one now and that must be dealt with.
	I welcome the review of troop movements conducted by the Ministry of Defence, but lament the lack of planning, or hopelessly over-optimistic planning, for the post-conflict phase. The UK has maintained approximately the same number of troops in Iraq since the end of major combat operations. We were told then that commanders on the ground believed that the situation did not merit more troops. Now, despite the arrival of Italian, Polish and Spanish troops, it is clear that it must have changed. Can the Secretary of State explain what is different now from the end of July? Is Iraq substantially more dangerous now, or has there been a change in the political imperative?
	Current UN figures place the number of attacks on coalition forces at an average of more than 10 a day. Will the Secretary of State comment on the rate of attacks on our forces? Is it an increase on previous months? Are British forces in greater danger now than they were a few weeks ago? The Secretary of State's written statement yesterday made it clear that the new deployment represents an interim reinforcement, so what are his estimates of the total number of troops in fact required? Will existing offers of troops from other countries meet that requirement; and will the Secretary of State confirm that if more troops arrive from other places, we may expect Britain and America to reduce their contribution?
	At the same time we await the Government's defence White Paper. We believe that the Government must think hard about the long-term requirements for infantry numbers in the light of recent events.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman once again clarify Liberal Democrat policy? Did the Liberal Democrats oppose the war, but now believe that we did not send enough troops in at the beginning?

Paul Keetch: I do not even understand the question. Clearly, we opposed the war. There is no doubt about that; we voted against it. However, the House voted for the war and we accept that. We supported the troops in what they were doing; we wished for a swift and successful outcome; and we still wish for that. The number of troops on the ground should be determined by the force commanders. As the Secretary of State said earlier, at the end of July the force commander on the ground accepted that the number of troops was then correct. Clearly, more troops are now required and I am trying to ascertain whether the situation has become worse or whether the political imperative has changed. That is what the debate is about.
	In that regard, does the Secretary of State agree that if more troops were sent under a UN mandate, backed by a new resolution, they would stand a better chance of producing real stability in Iraq? That would be better than simply sending more coalition forces. Advocates of UN control make the case that a UN force would be better at restoring security than an American-led one. Surely that is the case. A framework for political transition under the UN authority is the key to providing hope for the Iraqis and stemming the support of terrorist groups. Ultimate security in Iraq depends on the emergence of a legitimate Iraqi Government with their own security forces, supported if necessary by international military and police. We believe that the UN can best create such legitimacy.

Bernard Jenkin: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the UN is not a military organisation, and that it is not good at commanding multinational military operations? That is what we found in the Balkans. It was not until the Americans took a lead, with NATO, that we were able to get a grip on the situation there. Is not that the model that we should be pursuing, and not an ephemeral and idealised UN solution that is really only a vehicle for French resistance to American policy?

Paul Keetch: If one is looking for a model, the first Gulf war is a very adequate one. The UN authorised the Americans to control that force. Clearly, a force of the size involved now needs America to remain in the lead, but that must happen with UN authority, and other UN nations must also be prepared to take part. We believe that such a force—helping to keep the peace, develop the new political leadership of Iraq and bring about the reconciliation of the country—would best be led by the UN.
	Before his tragic death in Baghdad, the late and respected Sergio de Mello said that total security could never be provided by outsiders. The coalition could never provide enough guns to coerce all the people of Iraq all the time. So the sooner that there are Iraqi forces answerable to an Iraqi Government, the better. We believe that that can be brought about most quickly by a multinational UN-led operation in Iraq.
	I hope that the Government will impress on the US that it would be an error to disband the Iraqi army. If it is domestic security that is required, no one would be better placed to provide it than some of those former soldiers. It is difficult to see what obstacles lay in the face of reconstructing and retraining that army. If there are any, will the Secretary of State say what they are?

Richard Younger-Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that a precedent exists for using Iraqi forces? Personnel from the Basra naval academy have been retrained as guards for the world food store outside the city.

Paul Keetch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has seen the situation in Basra at first hand. If it is possible to use the Iraqi navy for such purposes, it should also be possible to use the Iraqi army.
	In that connection, will the Secretary of State say what plans exist to involve the governing council in security matters, policing and so on? Is there a coherent timetable for handing back power to the Iraqi people?
	The UK Government should be using whatever special influence they have with the US to put the UN in the driving seat in Iraq. That may mean sharing reconstruction contracts among other countries, but if that is the price to be paid for international help, it should be paid.
	That may be an extreme view, but a French politician told me only a few weeks ago that he would not ask French troops to put their lives on the line to protect American business men securing American contracts from an American-controlled Iraqi Government. Only the UN can provide the Iraq council with legitimacy, get the constitutional conference moving, and make Iraqis feel that they have a say in their future.US and British forces will have an obligation to remain in Iraq until that time comes, but ultimately the UN should take over.
	We are debating the military situation today, but we should not forget the humanitarian situation—the supply of power and water, and the provision of food. It is clear that aid agencies cannot operate without security, and the reports that NGOs are leaving the country on account of the worsening security situation are deeply worrying. What impact is the current instability having on the welfare of the Iraqi people and the supply of assistance? Will the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he or his colleagues at the Department for International Development have had with the NGOs? Are the Government working towards achieving the security that the NGOs require to carry out their work?
	I turn now to the issue of weapons of mass destruction. What is the current assessment? Are British troops—or indeed Iraqis—considered to be at any risk from the yet undiscovered weapons of mass destruction? Has any more evidence been found?
	I conclude with some thoughts about today's Conservative-inspired debate. I find it rather surprising that members of the Conservative party—who supported the decision to go to war and, indeed, were the only people who were more vociferous in their support for the US than the Government—should now complain so bitterly about its aftermath. When the Leader of the Opposition led his party through the Lobbies with the Government on 18 March, he did so with full knowledge of the difficulties that might arise afterwards.
	People on all sides of the argument understood that going to war without the full support of the international community could cause difficulties when the war was over. I assume that members of the Tory party did not support the war on conditional terms—that they did not back the Government only on the understanding that everything went well. They supported the decision to attack Iraq at the time, and they have to live with the consequences.
	The House should imagine for a moment what would have happened if the US had attacked Iraq but the British Government had decided not to contribute. The Tory party would have attacked the Government for failing in their duty. Indeed, the Tory leadership fully supported a pre-emptive strike a long way in advance of the votes in this House on 18 March 2003.
	When did the Tory party start supporting the attack? On 2 September 2002, the Leader of the Opposition said that the party supported a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. He stressed that military action was about standing up for British interests and he criticised the Prime Minister for allowing the case for military intervention. He backed the prospect of a pre-emptive US and allied attack on Iraq. That was weeks before the publication of the so-called dodgy dossier, and more than six months before the votes in Parliament on 18 March. It was two months before the weapons inspectors returned, and before most of our forces were in the Gulf.
	The Conservatives backed pre-emptive action to the hilt, and they did so in spite of the warnings from so many people—including members of the Conservative party—that such action might cause problems.
	In connection with today's debate, we should remember that, before the debate in March, the dossier and the deployment of troops, the Tories backed George Bush's war. This House, and this country, should never forget that.

Jimmy Hood: When I listened to the start of the debate, I thought that there must have been some confusion behind the Speaker's Chair. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had bumped into the shadow Secretary of State, that they had dropped their notes, and then picked up each other's by accident. I was convinced that the speech by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was being made by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made many fine speeches, but it was not his finest hour today. The House has been deprived of a proper opportunity to discuss the Iraq issue, and the Opposition motion is very disappointing. If all my right hon. Friend has to worry about is what is coming at him from across the Dispatch Box, he does not have much to fear.
	I last spoke in a debate on Iraq last November. I opened my speech with a question: would the world be a safer place if we went to war in Iraq? If not, I believed that we should not go to war. I supported the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that occasion, and continued to do so until March.
	I did not vote in favour of the war, however. That was not because I supported Saddam Hussein, or because I was against military action—had we succeeded in getting a second resolution through the UN Security Council, I would have been quite comfortable about continuing my support. I made my decision because I was worried about the consequences of intervention, and history shows that those concerns were justified.
	I do not speak from retrospective spite. I am certainly not one of the "I-told-you-so" brigade, although there may be a few of those. I am expressing my deeply felt conviction. It was not comfortable for me to vote against a three-line Whip for the first time in 16 years, but to this day I am convinced that my decision was correct.
	If Mr. Speaker were in his place, he, as a Glaswegian, would understand my next point. Anyone who goes to the wonderful city of Glasgow and who has lost his way will always find a friendly face prepared to give him directions. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said to someone in Glasgow, "I'm lost and I want to be there", he would give you a warm reception and say something like, "I'll tell you where to go, but if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here." There is no good our looking retrospectively and criticising what has happened. It is our duty and responsibility to concentrate on how we get from where we are to where we want to be.
	I speak from a position of supporting the Government. I am certainly not one of those who criticises the Prime Minister—quite the opposite. I am a firm supporter of the Prime Minister, and history will prove that his influence on the American Administration from 9/11 onwards was vital. I hate to imagine how the world would be if he had not exerted his influence to restrain the hawks in the American Administration. People criticise the Prime Minister for blindly following George Bush, but that is not my reading of what he has done. The Prime Minister has not done that at all. He supported more the position of the US State Department and Colin Powell than he did the position of the Defence Department's Rumsfeld and others around the President of the United States.

Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about how our Prime Minister may have restrained the actions of the United States. Would he care to think whether the new behaviour of the United States, more friendly towards the United Nations, owes more to the influence of our Government or to the practical experience of the Americans in Iraq?

Jimmy Hood: Let me give a politician's answer: it is very much a bit of both. However, I am sure that the Prime Minister would much have preferred to have a second resolution. So much was invested in getting that resolution that we were put in the position of not being able to back away and hold back some of the American hawks, and that may have added to the pressure placed on the Government to commit themselves to going in with the Americans rather than letting them go in on their own. I am sure that our Prime Minister has had influence in arguing the case for looking more supportively at the United Nations. I am confident, too, that what has happened in the European Union and in NATO must bring about a revision of how we work together.
	It is tragic for the rest of the world that the hawks were given so much power in America, but they are finding out now that they cannot go it alone. The only answer is to go through the EU and NATO, and certainly through the UN. To return to my Glaswegian story, the point is that in order to get to where we need to be, there is only one road to take—the road through the United Nations. I see no other solution. I heard the Secretary of State say that 30 countries will join the coalition in sending troops, and that is always welcome. But the question is how many troops those 30 countries will send.

Paul Keetch: From memory, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, I think that it is 140,000 American troops, 10,500 British and a total contribution of 9,000 Poles and others.

Jimmy Hood: There we are. Waiting for someone else to join the coalition and bring a solution is not the answer. The only answer is to go through the United Nations. The sooner we accept that, the better. We must not defend entrenched positions—all that happens when we get entrenched is that we stay in the trench.

Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is not just a question of numbers. The quality and experience of troops is also important. The benefit of having Indian, Pakistani and even French troops is that they have experience of peacekeeping operations and know how to do the work. It is great to have 100 Lithuanian troops in Iraq, but they may not have been involved before in peacekeeping operations, while other troops from other UN forces will have had previous experience.

Jimmy Hood: I do not know whether that was an intervention or an amendment to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
	Let me conclude by turning to a real problem that has been made much worse by the events of the past six months. We can see what is happening in the middle east, in Palestine and on the west bank. There are people on both sides of that argument—indeed, we have people on both sides in the House. In my 16 years here, I have been fortunate enough never to find myself on either side of that argument; instead, I have seen the injustices on both sides and the need for the two sides to live side by side in peace. There is no rocket science involved in accepting the logic of finding a political solution, but politicians are all too often not part of the solution, but part of the problem. I despair when I see what is happening in Palestine and Israel, but once again the only solution must be a multinational solution though the United Nations. We must unite within the UN to bring solutions to such dark problems. If we do not, we will be here in six months holding another debate on Iraq and the middle east as we discuss more misery, more killings and a continued lack of commonsense political solutions. I hope that we can go forward through the UN and that the American Administration can bite their lip, swallow their pride and seek a UN mandate through the Security Council to solve the problems in Iraq and the rest of the middle east.

Alex Salmond: My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) often tells me how he finds himself in full agreement with the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) in the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, which the hon. Gentleman chairs. I, too, find myself in virtually total agreement with every word he has just said.
	Similar to the hon. Gentleman's Glasgow example, it would be possible for those of us who unambiguously opposed the conflict to say that it has nothing to do with us and is all the fault of the Government and the Conservative Opposition who led us into the morass in which we find ourselves. It would be possible to say that we should therefore offer no solutions or suggestions for how to get out of the mess. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is incumbent on us to put forward our proposals and solutions. It is a matter of great regret that the amendment that my hon. Friends and I tabled was not selected so that we could divide on it this evening. It would have found a lot of support across the House from people who genuinely seek a way to improve the situation. Indeed, I see the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), nodding in support of that.
	What is the Government's objection to unambiguous UN authority for the stabilisation force in Iraq and to its being under UN control and within the ambit of the UN? I listened closely to President Bush's statement the other evening. Although I would not say that he is running back to the UN cap in hand, a significant level of concern has forced him into that position.
	The House should reflect that, while we mourn the British armed forces' casualties in Iraq, the casualties of the American forces are much, much greater. They have lost more people in Iraq since 1 May, when the President of the United States officially declared that hostilities were over, than they lost during the period of actual conflict. The latest figures that I have show total UK casualties of 50, of which 17 occurred after 1 May, but 123 casualties among US service personnel since that date. Furthermore, on figures from websites offering counts and estimates from reputable academics, the Government do not seem to have grasped that more than 6,000 civilians have died in the course of the conflict. Whatever was achieved in Iraq, it was certainly not at a bargain; there has been a substantial cost in human life.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Clydesdale: pressure of events rather than the eloquence of the Prime Minister persuaded America to put Colin Powell—the Secretary of State—back in charge of some aspects of American foreign policy. What has been proposed to date will not be satisfactory, understandably, for many of the countries that resolutely opposed conflict on US and UK terms.
	Although I realise that for the Government the BBC website is not the most reputable source, for a large majority of people it is, none the less, a much more reputable source than the Government themselves. Today, in analysing the moves of the UN, the website states:
	"Several Security Council members—including France, Russia and Germany—are reluctant to approve any resolution that appears to give retroactive blessing to the Iraq war, which they opposed."
	That is entirely understandable. I would not approve that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clydesdale, although he is looking for a solution, would not approve of anything that gave a blessing to something that we thought fundamentally wrong. The website continued:
	"They have also insisted that any UN mandate give genuine power to the international organisation, rather than merely being a fig leaf for a US-run operation."
	That, too, is entirely understandable.

Ivor Caplin: rose—

Alex Salmond: As the Minister wants to intervene, I hope that he will tell us what are the obstacles to giving a genuine UN mandate, rather than a US fig leaf. What are the blockages?

Ivor Caplin: I intervene to tell the hon. Gentleman that if he had been in the House yesterday, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explain some of those details; in particular, the work that the United Kingdom, the US Government, the European Union and others are doing in the UN to try to strengthen the UN mandate in Iraq. That is why there is a draft resolution; it is being discussed at the Security Council and proposes
	"a United Nations-mandated multinational force under existing unified command".—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 39.]
	because that is the best way for the UN to operate.

Alex Salmond: Under the command of US armed forces. The concern of many of the countries that opposed the war, and many of those that did not, is, as the BBC website pointed out, that there will not be genuine power for a genuine UN mandate. The Minister knows all too well that there is a substantial difference between an invitation with a supportive UN resolution under the US command structure and a genuine authority under the UN for a multinational force. Even if he does not realise that, the countries that are, as yet, reluctant to take part certainly do realise it. What exactly are the obstacles to moving to that genuine UN position?

Paul Keetch: Until that point, I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman's view. The point that we made is that the UN could authorise the United States to command a force. Can he give us an example where a UN force of the size that would be required in Iraq has ever had a multilateral system? Surely, all UN forces have a command structure. We suggest that it should be a US command structure. No other nation and no other body could actually command a force of that size.

Alex Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are other examples of UN administrations, most recently in East Timor, where such a command structure was established. It was not the size of Iraq, but we have not had to try to establish a command structure in a country of that size.
	Throughout the debate, the Liberal Democrats have tried to have things both ways. My interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he was calling for a genuine UN force in Iraq. If he is saying that what President Bush is proposing at the UN is exactly that, his reading of the President's remarks a few nights ago is significantly different from mine. I thought that they were carefully phrased to say that the command structure would remain under US control.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesperson engaged us with a quote from a French source, which tried to suggest that there were a variety of other reasons for not conceding that command structure. I am calling for a genuine UN authority and command structure.

George Foulkes: rose—

Alex Salmond: I give way to the former Minister in the Scotland Office.

George Foulkes: And in the Department for International Development.
	This is a strange debate. The Minister has just said that what my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party are calling for is what the Government are arguing for at the United Nations. The Liberal Democrat spokesman is right: if the UN force that we want is not commanded by the US, can the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) tell us which country will do it? I have great respect for Lithuania—apart from its football—but which country does the hon. Gentleman suggest? Lithuania, Poland?

Alex Salmond: I am interested in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman suggests Lithuania and Poland rather than France, Germany or one of the other major powers, or indeed the many other countries that have committed substantial numbers of troops. I have no doubt that it will be extremely difficult to summon the number of troops that will be required unless from a variety of countries. Equally, I have no doubt that unless the operation is genuinely UN authorised and led, it will be impossible to bring into that force the very countries that would participate, but will not do so, to cite the BBC website, as a "fig leaf" for a continuing US-run operation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain why those countries are reluctant to embrace the UK Government's offer. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why the Government have yet to persuade those countries, and the many others that see the current moves of President Bush as those of a country under pressure through overstretch rather than one that is willing to embrace a UN operation.
	Nor do I have great confidence in the Government's claims of UN authority for their actions. If I interpret the Secretary of State's comments correctly, he still maintains that the conflict took place under proper UN processes. Few other people in the international community would maintain that position, but the Government maintain their fig leaf of proper authorisation because it is necessary to spin that yarn to try to justify the unjustifiable.

Dari Taylor: I object to the statement about spinning a line. With great courtesy, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia we could not achieve a force and command structure that was effective until the Americans and the British decided to take it over. Only at that point, when the structure of command was straight and easy, did we have sufficient troops. I remind the hon. Gentleman, with great passion, that we were told by the whole world that we were 10 years too late and thousands of Muslims died as a consequence, so I hope that he will withdraw that statement—it is silly and offensive.

Alex Salmond: I have no doubt that the hon. Lady objects to being spun a line. The majority of people in this country object to being spun into a war under false pretences.

Dari Taylor: rose—

Alex Salmond: I have heard the hon. Lady, now she will get her answer. I am certain that it would be a good thing if Muslim troops from Muslim countries were in Iraq at present, but we cannot get those troops because of the US Administration's anxiety to maintain absolute control over the command structure of the stabilisation force in Iraq. Incidentally, why was the US so anxious not to be in a dual role in Afghanistan, as a combatant country and in the stabilisation force, yet that is apparently all right in Iraq? What are the obstacles that prevent the United States from fully ceding authority to the UN? Is it a question of the contracts that the Liberal Democrat spokesman mentioned a few minutes ago? Would it be too much of a climbdown to have to return to the UN and say that the French are not really "surrender-monkeys", that the Germans are not really ungrateful and that the UN is no longer the talking shop that the US Administration described it as only a few months ago?
	The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) shakes her head. Has she really forgotten the disparaging tones with which members of the US Administration described the UN? Can she really have forgotten the activities of those in the cabal in the US Administration who took us into this war? Is she really saying that she would trust their opinion more than she would trust the UN, as the international authority, which is supported by most people in this country?

Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Salmond: With great respect, I have given way seven or eight times, and I want to make progress.

George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is in difficulty.

Alex Salmond: I give way a lot more to the right hon. Gentleman—a former Scottish Office Minister—than he ever does to me in debates; he has never been anxious to give way.
	I would simply like to know from the Government what is it about the doubts of France, Russia, Germany and many other countries in the UN that they are not willing to satisfy. The Government should establish that they are not trying to find a fig leaf for continuing US control, but that they want a genuine UN-authorised force. There is no doubt in my mind that such a force would stand a better chance of stabilising the position in Iraq in a way that is most certainly not happening at the moment.
	Finally, I want to continue the analogy used by the hon. Member for Clydesdale. He said that, in Glasgow, people say that they would not necessarily start from here. I also recall that English comedians regarded the Glasgow concert halls as the toughest venues anywhere, anytime. I have never heard the Braemar gathering described as a particularly tough venue, except that the Prime Minister managed to get booed while in the royal enclosure of the Braemar gathering this weekend. The police interviewed one of the people who booed him and decided that it was not a breach of the peace; it was a legitimate expression of opinion. [Interruption.] The booing was widespread.

George Foulkes: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the polls?

Alex Salmond: The polls are not good reading for the right hon. Gentleman either. I suspect that he should worry about a Prime Minister who cannot even venture safely into the royal enclosure of the Braemar gathering. I suspect that the reason for that is the deep-seated resentment of people of all classes and types. They deeply resent being gathered into a conflict on a trail of deception. If the Government want to recover any sense of regard among the population, instead of trying to smooth lines and pretend that things are not as they are, they should genuinely eat their pride, go back to the UN and start to make this process legal under international law, as it always should have been. I hope that we will hear, in the summing up of the debate, that the Government will now embark on that course, which many of us would have advised many months ago.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate because it is an opportunity to discuss the situation in Iraq, and I suspect that we will have to discuss that for many months, if not years, to come. I cannot see the British and American Administrations easily withdrawing from that situation or being prepared to agree to a UN operation, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has outlined, because that goes to the heart of the problem: the politics of the US Administration, led by George Bush, who are deeply antagonistic to any kind of internationalism or multilateralism. Indeed, since US companies have already signed up a large number of contracts of behalf of the temporary administration in Iraq, I suspect that things will carry on like that.

George Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend know which Administration brought the US back into UNESCO and paid the back fees to the UN that President Clinton unfortunately had refused to pay?

Jeremy Corbyn: It was indeed the Administration led by George Bush, who were then vainly trying to get UN support, but I am rather surprised that my right hon. Friend, with such a long and distinguished record in international affairs, should seek to defend the most right-wing US Administration we have ever seen.

Jon Owen Jones: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that, with the forthcoming elections in America, the Government might find themselves in the very peculiar position of supporting the viewpoint of the Republicans in the US, while the Democrats are attacking the cause for war?

Jeremy Corbyn: It is extremely perceptive of my hon. Friend to raise that issue. Watching the debate in the Democratic party in the US, it seems that the stronger the anti-war position adopted by the candidates, the more support they get and the more likely they are to gain the nomination. Come the primary elections next year, the British Government will be in the strange situation of being lined up with George Bush against a Democratic party that will, I hope, adopt some kind of anti-war position, and it may do so because a large number of ordinary people in the US are also deeply upset about the policy in Iraq and also deeply opposed to the military intervention there.
	I twice went to the US earlier this year to take part in anti-war activities, and I was very interested in the large number of ordinary people who journeyed through appalling weather to Washington to demonstrate in January. Some of them held placards saying, "40 million Americans go without any health care, yet our Administration can afford to go to war in Iraq." The same things were said in San Francisco and other parts of the country. There is a massive anti-war movement in the US, as indeed there is in this country.
	I intervened on the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson, who kindly gave way while on that subject, but I have watched the Liberal Democrats in operation, as we all have for many years, and they seem to have developed a fine art of making statements in the House and opposite statements on the streets of this country—something called Liberal Focus teams in operation on the ground. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) himself said that the Liberal Democrats now support the position of British troops in Iraq and that they support the increase in British troops in Iraq as well as other things surrounding the war. Yet, on the ground, Liberal Democrats go around claiming, where it suits them, that they are the anti-war party in this country. I am not proud of the position that the British Government have adopted because I deeply disagree with it, as I have made clear on many occasions, but I wish that the Liberals would just be clear about what their position actually is.

Paul Keetch: rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Paul Keetch: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question: does he favour today the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq?

Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, I do favour the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, and I favour supporting the development of a civilian Government in Iraq, if necessary, with UN support. What I see in Iraq at present is a British and American occupying force—that is what it is in legal terms—and I see the Americans gaining contracts from that for Halliburton, Bechtel and many others, all of which happen to have funded George Bush's election campaign in the first place. The British Government are totally complicit in that whole operation. When George Bush says that he is not prepared to agree to UN control of forces in Iraq, what is the position of the British Administration? They say that they are in favour of the US and UN, but they are incapable of influencing that policy.
	I want to raise one or two other issues briefly, because this is a short debate. We have to ask ourselves some questions about how we got into this position. Was Iraq the real, credible and present threat that was claimed in the early part of this year? We were told, in terms, that there were weapons of mass destruction. We were told that there was a real, credible and present threat from Iraq. When will the Iraqi survey group report? When will we know definitely whether there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? When will we know about all the weapons that Britain sold to Iraq in the first place some years ago?
	If it is right and proper, as it is, for Lord Hutton to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly, why is it not appropriate to hold an independent judicial inquiry into all the circumstances leading to the war in the first place, the pressures that were put on and the political decisions that were made to take us into that conflict? It is only right and proper that the British public should know in whose name the war is being fought and who is benefiting from it.
	I have observed from reading websites and information and from talking to people who have come back from Iraq that it is a country with varying degrees of insecurity. Some areas are considerably worse than others. Many poverty stricken and unemployed former Iraqi army soldiers, who were given their weapons but no money and told to go away from their barracks, are running amok throughout the country. I also observe increasing opposition to the British and American presence in the country, but the insecurity does not extend to the oil wells and oil refineries. Huge efforts are put into protecting the oil pipelines. The argument that the war was for oil is only part of the truth—it was not the only reason, but it was a major factor. I suspect that in the long run we will get a large north American base in Iraq and a long period of instability in the region, because if one reads the musings of Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and all the others, the project for the new American century is all about such wars and the imposition of American bases in different places throughout the world. Is that really the kind of world in which we want to live in the long run? Is that really a sane, safe and secure way to look at the problems that are facing the whole globe?

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to insecurity in Iraq. Can he say whether that insecurity would increase or decrease if British troops were withdrawn tomorrow?

Jeremy Corbyn: I suspect that the insecurity is serious or very serious in some parts and less serious in others. If British troops withdrew, I suspect that there would be a change to the atmosphere because the Iraqis would have an opportunity to develop their society themselves.
	Is there to be a situation in which we put in more and more troops to protect their security? I heard the Defence Secretary yesterday defending the increase of 1,400 troops in Iraq—a few more are going. Successive generals used exactly the same arguments during the imposition of more American forces on Vietnam throughout the 1960s and 1970s. They said that the troops needed to be there for their own protection. Several hundred thousand troops ended up there, and there was ignominious defeat and failure as well as a huge loss of life among Vietnamese and American people. I am frightened that the same situation is developing in Iraq.

Alice Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, it did so quickly and had a fairly successful entry to the country? Ten years later, when it came out, the red army was defeated and Afghanistan in such a state that the Taliban were able to take it over. It is easy to conquer a country, but what happens afterwards must be considered.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Soviet Union found to its cost that invasion is quick and simple with an efficient and well-equipped army, as my hon. Friend says. The problem arises in the longer term, and no doubt the situation was a major factor in bringing about the fall and demise of the Soviet Union.
	The war has tragically cost the lives of servicemen from Britain, the United States and Iraq as well as the lives of many Iraqi civilians—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan cited a figure of 6,000. Iraq Body Count, which is a reputable academic organisation, puts the figure between 6,000 and 10,000. I do not know the figure, so I look forward to the Secretary of State's answer. Many people are dying due to unexploded cluster bombs, which were sold by this country and are on sale at the defence equipment exhibition that is being held in the east end of London. I suspect that large numbers of people will die of cancer because of the use of depleted uranium weapons and the poison that comes from them. A price will be paid for the war by children who are yet to be born in Iraq and poor civilians who do not have access to medical equipment.
	Surely we need to look at the world in a rather different way from one involving a series of wars and conflicts during which we align ourselves politically with the United States Administration. We should instead examine the causes of war: injustice, poverty and the grasping of natural resources. When I hear the speeches of Bush and Cheney in which they talk about North Korea and other such places, I am horrified that what has happened in Iraq could well be repeated in other places. I ask the Government to think seriously about the need for a real break with the American strategy and about some intelligent approach to achieve peace and justice in the world, which would save us from wars in the future.

Robert Walter: The debate is important and it is appropriate that we should have it after our two-month recess during which the situation in Iraq has deteriorated and we have seen the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the conflict exposed in the Hutton inquiry. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on not exposing, or gloating about, what has happened during the inquiry but concentrating on what has happened on the ground in Iraq. The situation has deteriorated and they have especially examined the role played by the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. It is important to preface my remarks with congratulations to our troops on their efforts.

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on how it is consistent and reasonable to criticise the British Government's lack of planning in Iraq as the situation deteriorates, with which I have a fair degree of agreement, yet to make no criticism whatsoever of the American role, which is far more important?

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his early intervention. Perhaps he would care to listen to the rest of my speech and make a judgment on that.
	I want to say a few words about the role that our troops have played in the conflict. I congratulate them on their efforts, skill and courage. I have spoken to many of my constituents who have come back from Iraq—I have a substantial Ministry of Defence establishment in my constituency—and I am proud to be associated with the attitude that the troops have taken on the ground. If I may say something to satisfy the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), I am impressed by the attitude of the British troops compared with that of some of the American troops. The way in which the American troops have approached the Iraqi people might be described, at best, as arrogant. The situation has been deteriorating every day.

George Osborne: Surely my hon. Friend accepts that the Americans are policing a much more difficult part of the country and that they must necessarily adopt different tactics.

Robert Walter: Whatever the tactics adopted by various troops, every occupying power has a duty to respect the human rights of those whom they are present to protect. There have been instances when United States troops have done things that I would frankly not wish to defend, but that is beyond the scope of the debate, which is about the military situation in Iraq as it affects this Government and our troops.
	I have taken a close interest in the situation in Iraq both in the run-up to the conflict and during it. I am a member of the Select Committee on International Development, which has published several reports about the preparations for the conflict. The Committee has taken evidence from two Secretaries of State and other Ministers and officials. It has taken an interest that sometimes has gone beyond the role of the Department for International Development by examining other agencies, including those that act for the Ministry of Defence.
	It is no secret that I spoke during the debate in the Chamber on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction on 26 February and that I voted for the amendment and against military action. What I said has been vindicated by the events that have taken place and the evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry. I said:
	"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator with scant regard for human rights. There is no doubt that in the past he has used chemical weapons against his own people. We know from the run-up to the last Gulf war that he sought an albeit crude delivery mechanism for his weapons. It is clear that, along with at least 10 other dubious regimes in the world, he would like to possess nuclear weapons."
	However, I went on to say:
	"Despite the Prime Minister's claims of 'linkage', there is no evidence that Saddam has assisted al-Qaeda. There are Governments with whom we have good relations who have given much greater comfort to those evil terrorists. We await"—
	we still await—
	"the evidence of the weapons inspectors that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. If he possesses them, the evidence is clear that the range of any of his delivery mechanisms would be a threat to his near neighbours, most of whom seem"—
	and remain—
	"totally unconvinced of the need for war at the present time."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 347.]

Alice Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although al-Qaeda was not conspiring with Saddam before the war, it is more than likely that it is in Iraq now, conspiring with any unscrupulous element to disrupt a settlement?

Robert Walter: I would not wish to speculate too much on that, but the conflict has not improved the terrorist situation. As we have seen on the ground in Iraq and in other parts of the world, the situation has deteriorated.
	The Hutton inquiry has shown that the Government massaged some of the flimsy evidence on Saddam's capabilities. The evidence of the UN weapons inspectors was that they could find no weapons of mass destruction.

Eric Martlew: As the hon. Gentleman said, he was not taken in by the document and voted against it, as I did. The truth is that we are in the position that we are in today because we lost that vote on the war, not because of what the Government said at the time.

Robert Walter: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the background to the current military situation is that the UN weapons inspectors could find no weapons of mass destruction. There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, yet the Prime Minister told the House that Saddam Hussein had them and they could be deployed in 45 minutes. That is the longest 45 minutes in history.

Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister may not have managed to persuade the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) or me, but the point is that some of the Prime Minister's more gullible colleagues were persuaded by the variety of dodgy dossiers with which we were presented.

Robert Walter: The British people were taken in by dodgy dossiers and other things. I think that Hans Blix was too convincing in the view that he presented to the UN and that the military situation was precipitated by the possible disappearance of a window of opportunity, but that is all history, as hon. Members have said. We need to consider how we deal with the awful situation in Iraq now.
	From those whom I have spoken to who have been on the ground in Iraq, it is clear that the life of ordinary Iraqis in many parts of that country is not, as the Secretary of State said, better than it was. There are severe problems with electricity and water supplies and other basic essentials of normal life. Crime and killings are commonplace. Any occupying power should be truly ashamed of the breakdown of law and order in that country.
	In my constituency last week, I attended a meeting at which a number of people who had recently been in Baghdad and Basra told stories that are a fair reflection of what is going on, although I cannot corroborate them. We were told that a son was kidnapped in Basra. The family knew where to go to deal with the problem because the gang that had kidnapped him had set up a shop in the centre of town. It was clearly marked and everyone knew it was there. All one had to do was go to the shop with the name of the person who was sought and, after ferreting through files and so on, someone would come up with a piece of paper stating the ransom to be paid for the person to be returned. That is appalling and it is just one example of what is going on.
	There are many such stories: electricity transmission lines have been pulled down in broad daylight under the gaze of coalition forces who appear to the local population to be either unwilling or powerless to do anything. I am talking not about sabotage but about a criminal business activity done for money. The scrap metal produced from such activities is freely available on markets around the world. The question is whether coalition forces were prepared for the aftermath of the war. Was the situation that we face today predictable? If so, what has gone wrong?
	The International Development Committee spent a long time considering the humanitarian consequences before, during and after the conflict. As I said, we published several reports on that. We took evidence from the United States Administration in Washington, the UN in New York, numerous other international organisations and non-governmental organisations. We took evidence a number of times from both Secretaries of State for International Development. When asked the general question of what planning had taken place or whether there had been any, Baroness Amos said on 30 June that plans had been made but that they were for a different outcome. That sums up some of the lack of preparedness of our Government.
	Baroness Amos said:
	"there was planning which DFID was involved in with respect to what would happen post the conflict, and much of that planning went into thinking about the scale of the humanitarian crisis. At that time it was feared that there would be huge numbers of internally displaced people, refugees and so on, and much of the planning went into that. What was not anticipated was the scale of looting which happened post the conflict and which has hampered the effort to a certain extent."
	She went on to say:
	"there was preparation, there was preparation for a range of possible crises, ranging from prolonged urban warfare through large population movements and widespread disruption of essential infrastructure. As it happened what we did see was widespread looting and a breakdown in law and order, which had not been anticipated and which led to serious problems."
	The disruption of essential infrastructure has happened, so what was the planning for?
	Baroness Amos said:
	"As I said, there is no doubt there were real initial difficulties, and that is because the planning was for different things."
	She went on to say:
	"I think that we planned for very specific scenarios which did not occur, and on top of that you had the looting which did occur . . . In addition to that there was confusion at the beginning, and part of that confusion was to do with the fact that the planning had been for these particular humanitarian scenarios."
	So they got it wrong, at least in the Secretary of State's post-conflict view.
	I take the House back to the evidence given by the previous Secretary of State, who on 21 March, in response to our first report, said in answer to our question about planning:
	"The importance of infrastructure—especially for water and sanitation—has been fully recognised by the military and plans have been developed to provide, where necessary, emergency water and electricity supply."
	In answer to a question about the possible security situation, she said:
	"The risk of ethnic violence following conflict is a serious concern. Military and humanitarian planning is informed by this risk . . . The objective will be to create a secure and safe environment for all Iraqis, so that people do not want to move. This will require a focus on quick stabilisation of areas coming under coalition military control".
	I shall now cite one of the Committee's recommendations to which the then Secretary of State replied. We said:
	"It is important that the UN should have the lead role in a post-conflict Iraq as soon as possible. There is a real danger that donors and NGOs would not play a full part in the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq if the country were administered by a military governor".
	I think that that has come to pass. The right hon. Lady's response of 21 March was:
	"The Government agrees. A UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort, and to make possible the engagement of the International Financial Institutions and the wider international community. The Government is at the forefront of efforts to ensure that a suitable UN mandate is put in place and is holding regular discussions with key partners to achieve this."
	Another of our recommendations said:
	"We believe that one area in which the military could play an important role is policing and protection. We urge the military to develop plans to provide such protection, where requested, for humanitarian work if they have not already do so."
	The then Secretary of State replied:
	"The need for the maintenance of law and order has been fully appreciated and incorporated into campaign planning."
	The Secretary of State ended her response to the Committee's report by saying:
	"The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that we urgently relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. In our view, the overall level of preparedness of the international community to cope with the humanitarian challenges which may lie ahead in Iraq is not as great as it could be . . . We will focus, in particular, on efforts to ensure that the UN is both funded and enabled, through Security Council resolutions, to play a leading role."
	The Government acknowledged that there was a need for post-conflict planning, but as the current Secretary of State for International Development said, they planned for the wrong scenario. It was clear from the evidence that we took from the United Nations, both here and in New York, and from senior officials such as the director of USAID, Andrew Natsios, in Washington, that the post-conflict planning was both far too limited and unco-ordinated. That reinforces the need for the UN to have a key position. If the new Iraq is to fulfil the vision of the beacon of democracy, prosperity and freedom that President Bush has talked about, the Iraqi people must feel that they have ownership of this process. They must feel that they have confidence in this process, which means that it must be a UN process. That security force must be a blue beret security force, and if we are to have an economic effort to rebuild Iraq, it must be an international effort, not just a United States effort.
	There is no doubt that we have removed an evil dictator who was oppressing the people of Iraq. I have every sympathy with those inside and outside Iraq who sought his removal. However, the case should have been made to the international community and executed under the auspices of the international institutions that we have spent half a century building up. Let us now restore the confidence and legitimacy of the United Nations. Let the United Kingdom and the United States put their strength and resources at the disposal of the UN for the benefit of the Iraqi people and for peace in the middle east.

Eric Joyce: I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will forgive me if I do not follow his general doom-mongering comments. We are fairly tight for time. I shall concentrate on what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said in his opening remarks. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is no longer in the Chamber. He made a series of pertinent observations at the beginning of his speech. He said that the hon. Member for North Essex can usually be relied on to make a pretty good speech in debates such as this. I would not necessarily agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but he can be relied upon usually to make a pretty good quality contribution. Yet today—many hon. Members in the Chamber, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends, might agree—the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed pretty thin. As the debate progressed I could not help noticing that the Opposition Benches emptied. That was followed by frenetic activity, with the Opposition Whip leaving the Chamber and getting a few Conservative Members to return to their places.
	I could not help noticing also that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who I understand is the Opposition's spokesperson on international development, was looking rather concerned. Perhaps she was wondering whether she could make any meaningful interventions in a debate on the military situation in Iraq.

Caroline Spelman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are in the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. Before he passes comment about the presence of international development spokesmen, he might like to look at the Government Benches. He will find that there are no representatives from the Department for International Development in the Chamber.

Eric Joyce: This is a debate on the military situation in Iraq, and I thought that the hon. Lady was looking rather concerned that she would be unable to participate. Fair comment has been made, so let us move on.
	The Opposition's problem is that basically they do not have a meaningful critique of Government policy. They broadly agree with the Government's position and their actions. They think that there is not a bad general prognosis for the longer term. However, they have to find some thin gruel with which to attack the Government. I suspect that that is why the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for North Essex were a bit weaker than they might otherwise have been in normal circumstances.
	I shall reflect on a couple of paradoxes that ran through the hon. Gentleman's comments. The Opposition want to agree broadly with the action taken on Iraq. The hon. Gentleman is reluctant to say negative things about the longer term, but everything that the Opposition say about the situation in Iraq conveys the impression that everything is falling apart. They do not really believe that, and when I hear Opposition Members make such comments on television they are clearly made without any spirit. We can see that in their eyes and hear it in their voices.
	Earlier on, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of overstretch. The Government made an announcement this week on the deployment of troops to Iraq. The hon. Gentleman talked about the deployment as a problem of overstretch. When he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he agreed with the deployment, he said that he did. In government, decisions have to be made that may have some minor negative consequence. It is certainly the case that we had 45,000 troops in Iraq and now we have 12,000. My arithmetic tells me that that is not a recipe for overstretch. That is one of the paradoxes that run through the comments of Opposition Members.
	By and large, the Opposition, including the hon. Gentleman, understand the need for patience. In due course, small advances will be made here and there. We shall see a gradual reconnection of power, a gradual increase in lawfulness, and a gradual reconstruction of the infrastructure. There will be good reasons for some celebration. No doubt Opposition Members will want to take part in that celebration. However, the nature of their line at present is effectively to deny that any improvement will ever take place. That is not credible and it does not achieve a balance.

Keith Simpson: The hon. Gentleman has considerable personal experience as he has served in the Army, and I should be grateful if he would comment on two points. First, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), talked about the positive things at the beginning of his speech and tried to give a balanced view. Secondly, what is the hon. Gentleman's response to the Foreign Secretary's memorandum that was leaked last week and spelt out in dramatic terms the way in which the situation in Iraq was deteriorating, saying that 5,000 UK troops needed to be sent there? That is not something made up by the Opposition—that is the hon. Gentleman's own Foreign Secretary.

Eric Joyce: I wholeheartedly agree with the general assessment that more troops needed to be deployed in Iraq in current circumstances. The commander on the ground asked for extra troops, and that is exactly what he got. The previous troop level satisfied his earlier assessment. It is terribly important, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that the commanders on the ground state the troop requirement—essentially that is what the MOD has provided. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mark Francois: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the House has been in recess for two months, the Opposition have done the House a service by using their time to provide the debate today, thus allowing the House to discuss the latest situation in Iraq? Members on both sides of the House have welcomed that opportunity. On the point about overstretch, the hon. Gentleman is right that the Opposition have supported the deployment of troops, but we have pointed out that that has resulted in overstretch for our armed forces. That is not hypocritical—we have supported the action, but we have to accept that there are knock-on consequences. Surely, it is perfectly appropriate for the Opposition to point that out in the House of Commons?

Eric Joyce: They can point out what they want, but the fact is that one cannot make an assumption of overstretch simply because troop deployment is to be increased. The overall deployment level is substantially lower, but the Opposition are using the term "overstretch" as if it were a given—an increase in troop deployment must mean overstretch. That is not the case either now or more generally.
	When the hon. Member for North Essex made his introductory remarks, he rightly praised the troops for their contribution to our successes to date, winning the conflict in the first place and their excellent work at the moment. Then we heard that everything is falling apart. I do not know how the Opposition or other Members would feel if they were on the ground, constantly hearing how wonderfully they were doing, but learning that the effect of their efforts was negative or had been neutralised. That is simply not the case, and it does not help the debate.

Jon Owen Jones: I do not have a clear idea of whether things are getting better in Iraq or worse, but many of my constituents are asylum seekers from Iraq whom I have helped in the past. In the past few weeks, I have seen a number of them. Many of them are from Baghdad, not Basra, and are desperate to get their families out because of the security situation. Last week, I had a call from someone whose wife was in Baghdad—the day before, one of her neighbours had been raped and strangled. The caller said that the security situation in Baghdad is far worse than it was before the war.

Eric Joyce: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, and have listened to his comments before with interest—I know that he feels very deeply about this. However, I simply cannot accept that the situation now is worse than it was before when, if someone disagreed with the sons of the regime, they could be dragged off to a zoo, thrown into a tiger's cage to be ripped apart and eaten. Things cannot get much worse than that, and we know that that was a fact of life.

Jon Owen Jones: I am not saying that the situation under Saddam Hussein was anything but deplorable, but things can be worse than they are for someone who says something against the Government leadership, only to be taken away and thrown to the lions. Someone could be in a position where it does not matter what they say—an intruder might come in, burgle their house, murder them or kill their children. That is a worse position.

Eric Joyce: I suspect that my hon. Friend and I will never agree on this issue. I simply do not agree that the situation is worse than previously. There is all sorts of evidence to show that that is not the case. For the moment, I guess that that will be the end of my comments on the issue, as we could debate it endlessly. I disagree that the situation is worse, as such a view does not stand up in the light of the evidence.

Dari Taylor: The newspapers have been full of reports—I have no doubts about them, as they have been supported by military documents—that Sunni extremists, Ba'ath die-hards and Muslim mujaheddin are all fighting in their different ways to unsettle the situation and put anything they can in the way of reconstruction. Surely to goodness we all understand that the situation is going to be very difficult, and nobody assumes otherwise. Did we not assume that that was going to be the case? Are we not asking the impossible in suggesting that the armed forces should understand everything that is going on and be present in every place where such people can manoeuvre in the community?

Eric Joyce: I thank my hon. Friend for those wise remarks. It behoves us to remember that these are difficult times. I am sure that there will be a positive outcome in due course, but it will take time. This is not the time for political opportunism, but I sometimes detect a bit too much of it from the Opposition Benches.
	It is not difficult to see that the Opposition tend to criticise what is happening on the ground in Iraq while desperately avoiding being critical of a Republican Administration. They want to criticise the situation in Iraq, but not a Republican Administration for whose policies they no doubt have a great regard. Frankly, that approach does not stack up. The situation in the British sector is considerably better than elsewhere. That is not to say that the US is not doing a very good job in the light of the different difficulties that it faces. However, the fact of the matter is that it does not stack up constantly to gainsay the effect that this country is having in Iraq without being critical of the Republican Administration. As it happens, in large terms, I would not be critical of America's efforts, as I think that it is making a pretty good effort. It takes a bit more than a generally negative tone in the short term with a hint at a positive tone in the longer term, along with the idea that the Opposition would have had some sort of cunning plan that they will not tell us anything about, to add up to a useful and coherent debate.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I should like to pull up the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who made some very interesting comments, but suggested that there was a vast anti-war movement in America. I have just returned from a holiday in America and I can tell him that, although there is an anti-war movement, it is not large and certainly not vast. I was in America at the time of the UN bombing, and the concern there is that it is not getting the job done quickly enough. That is exactly what we are saying in this House. As the Americans see it, their role is to try to turn the country back into a democratic state as quickly as possible. Their concern is the time for which their troops will have to be committed in the country. They are already talking about overstretch, and they have 140,000 troops there.
	On arriving in America, it was interesting to hear what people were saying on the streets. Obviously, when a bomb goes off and 100 people are killed, there will be much comment. It was extremely difficult to understand the Americans' long-term game plan. The local people saw a country called "Ayraq" that was somewhere the other side of Britain. They do not understand exactly what they are going to do with the long-term commitment that they are going to put in. We in this country would not understand the control and information coming down from President Bush. It is not getting home to the American people this message: "We have to go through with this now, no matter what, because we have to finish off what we have started."
	The role of the United Nations, whether in Korea, Bosnia, Beirut or anywhere else, has always been to go into a country to stand between two sides to try to sort out a situation. However, that can be done only when there is some form of military stability in that nation. On 19 August, when a bomb was driven up to the UN building and an enormous number of people were killed, it was shown that that was not the case. Unfortunately, I do not think that it will happen in the foreseeable future. The longer that we are in Iraq, the more time there will be for opposing forces to build up.
	There are great open borders in Iraq with Iran, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians. In a way, it is a new Cuba. People go there because they can be seen to make a difference. The UN has a vital role to play, but it has to be under the auspices of some form of military force. It is not possible to train a nation's policemen and soldiers without the help of the policemen and soldiers of other nations. We learned that in Rhodesia—Zimbabwe—and in Kenya and Malaya. We, as a nation, are not doing enough, quickly enough, to help those forces to build up. We learned a lesson in Zimbabwe in 1980 when we quickly got British policemen and soldiers out there to train the forces. It may not be a pretty sight 20 years later, but at the time the operation worked well, and it was the speed that counted.
	An increasingly prominent question—I certainly see it in my postbag—is: "Why haven't we found the weapons of mass destruction?" I supported the Government. Perhaps I am gullible and I was led astray by the Prime Minister, but—partly because I was in the services—I believe that one should support the troops when they are going in. We need to resolve the problem. It is all right for the Liberals to go on about it: they can change sides as many times as they want, but in the end nobody will believe them. At least we have the morals to stand by what we believe, unlike—I shall not say it.

Paul Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Oh, go on then.

Paul Keetch: If the hon. Gentleman will not believe the Liberal Democrats, does he believe his own leader, who said that he believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and could build up an arsenal that he could use against Britain? He said:
	"The only question is will he choose to strike against Britain? I believe so."
	Does the hon. Gentleman believe his leader?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I really must learn not to grant interventions to Liberal Democrats. I am not going to answer that. The Liberals need to learn when to be quiet.
	I want to move on to reserve forces and overstretch. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) made some interesting comments, although I do not agree with him. If we are to continue to have a long-term commitment to Iraq, we must not allow our forces to become overstretched. The British military work on a three-year training cycle. The first year is operational, the second is for training, and the third is for recuperating and resting. We are unable to recruit enough people to join our volunteer forces, so there is bound to be overstretch. The situation will continue for a long time to come. Our experience in Northern Ireland shows that it takes much longer to help people than is anticipated when one first goes in.
	If we are to use our forces wisely, that must include our reserve forces, some of whom are hon. Members who are in Iraq or who may yet go there. We need a much better way of mobilising those forces. The cold war is long gone. A situation such as this never arose in the 1990s, at the time of the strategic defence review. We did not anticipate a long-term commitment to a country such as Iraq. If the situation is allowed to continue, we will find that troops are away so much that people will not join the military because their families will not see them or get the back-up that they need at home. The Royal Marines are based just outside my constituency in Taunton. Having just returned, they are about to be redeployed in another situation. That is fine—it is what they signed up for—but they find it very tough never to be off-duty. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) asked the Secretary of State about the possible loss of battalions, or even regiments. I hope that that is not to be the case, because we can ill afford it.
	About 1.5 million refugees were chased out of Iraq over a long period. Those people should be brought back. Many of them—professional people who were chased out by the Saddam Hussein regime—are the kind of people who are needed back in Iraq to help to rebuild it. Many are in Jordan, Syria and Iran. We need to bring them back before they get the idea of coming back as armed insurgents. They must be brought back and assimilated into society but we must also do much more.
	Congress has been asked for another $87 billion. That is an enormous amount of money to have to put up to lead such a programme, but it will be needed. It is all very well claiming that things will get better; the time that they take to do so means that more goes wrong. One cannot expect 47 per cent. of the rural population to do without water for a long period. We must ensure that 100 per cent. of people have clean water.
	Why should anyone have faith in the supposedly developed world if we do not give a lead to people who need to be returned to the country and assimilated? Iraqis will continue to disbelieve what we are about. Why should they believe us? Actions speak louder than words. We must make progress; if we do not, we let those people down. The House should therefore completely support our role.

Alice Mahon: Today's debate is timely, but I am sorry that the Government did not provide a full debate on the subject. I support the amendment that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) tabled. If it had been selected, I would have voted for it because
	"stabilisation in Iraq can only be effective if implemented by forces under the control of the United Nations."
	I would add that political power must be handed over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. Some dreadful mistakes have been made, not least the total disbanding of the Iraqi army. That has made the situation far worse.
	We are right to focus on the misleading devices that were employed to get the country to go to war. Like everybody else, I await with bated breath the outcome of the Iraq survey group's report on weapons of mass destruction and the Hutton report. However, now is not the time for that.
	It is timely to remind hon. Members of the genuine consequences of the illegal and immoral war for the people of Iraq. It is proper to examine the way in which millions of ordinary Iraqi people are suffering now. We should also consider the destabilisation of the middle east. There is no comparison between that and the impact on a few political careers and no question about what should receive priority.

Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alice Mahon: No, I want to continue for a while and my hon. Friend has not been present for the whole debate.
	As many hon. Members said, the war has not been cost free. More than 6,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, hundreds of thousands have been injured and the security and livelihoods of many more have been destroyed. For what—a better life? We were told that when the occupying troops went in, flowers would be strewn in their path and they would be welcome. However, the reality is a massive increase in rape—women are not safe to go out—abductions, in the south as well as the north, murders, lootings and all other violent crimes. Power supplies have still not been restored and the water remains contaminated. Diseases such as cholera and dysentery are rife.
	Contrary to the claims of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday that all 240 hospitals are operating, NGO reports present a different picture. I recommend that my right hon. Friends read those reports on how the hospitals are operating. A mass of evidence exists, if they look for it, that paints a grim picture. There is a huge increase in patients admitted with gunshot wounds; many hospitals are without the medicines that they require; much equipment is useless or not operable during power cuts. Much has also been stolen and wrecked by looters. It is therefore not true that 240 hospitals are operating as we would recognise a fully operating hospital.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alice Mahon: I shall do so shortly.
	In a sense, Iraqis are worse off than they were under that hateful man. Before anybody asks "Do you support Saddam Hussein?", I emphasise that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I went to 10 Downing street and signed early-day motions in 1987 and 1988, when Saddam Hussein was considered to be someone with whom we could do business. I opposed him then; I do not have any truck with that man.
	The view is being put forward that we got rid of a dictator, that it was worth it, and that we are going to bring freedom and democracy back to the Iraqis. I believe that the contrary is happening at the moment, and will do so for the foreseeable future. I cannot see that changing. Iraq has descended into a lawless state—civil unrest is growing and about a dozen attacks on our troops take place daily. The jihadists are entering the country at an alarming rate. This was always predictable; indeed, it was predicted.
	What is happening in Iraq is seen by millions of Muslims throughout the world as a western crusade to grab the oil and to grab another part of the world for western society's needs. Iraq is surrounded by 10 or 12 Muslim countries, representing about 240 million Muslims. That is a fertile breeding ground for extremists. Al-Qaeda might not have been in Iraq before, but it, or similar groups, are almost certainly there now. I have never equated Iraq with Vietnam, although I know that some people think that it is going to end up like Vietnam did. My real fear is that Iraq could end up like Afghanistan.
	We should give Iraqis the vote, but I am not convinced that the Shi'a majority want anything like what we would view as a western democracy. Iraq will almost certainly become an Islamic state. I do not think that this process will lead to a secular society; the country will probably split into various pieces. Everything that has been said about keeping it as a sovereign state and introducing democracy will simply not come about.
	Yesterday, without making a statement to the House, the Secretary of State committed two more battalions and more specialist personnel to join the armed forces already in Iraq. This is a grave mistake. As I said earlier, I have recently spoken to troops who have just returned from a six-month tour of duty in Basra. They did not recognise the rosy picture that has been painted of southern Iraq. I sat and listened to them for more than an hour, and I suspect that two of them will be leaving our armed forces. There is no way that those two young men will go back to Iraq. They said that they were tolerated, at best, when they first went in, but that now there is deep resentment. If people want to look, they can see the demonstrations and the attacks that are happening on a daily basis, not only in the American-held areas but where we are, too.

Kevan Jones: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the troops returning from Iraq. Other members of the Defence Committee and I visited Basra in late July, and I accept that the situation there is no bed of roses, mainly as a result of a lack of investment by the previous regime over many years. However, schools, for example, are being opened by dedicated troops who are working very hard there. Will my hon. Friend give credit for the fact that things are being done to improve the situation, certainly in parts of southern Iraq? The picture is not entirely the bad one that she and, unfortunately, the press are trying to paint.

Alice Mahon: I point out to my hon. Friend that all the schools were working before we carried out this illegal invasion. [Interruption.] Most of them were. I have had meetings with Iraqi women who were involved in higher education but who are now unable to pursue their studies because they dare not go out alone, either during the day or at night, because of the abductions, rapes and murders. Many Iraqi women in the south are also being subjected to the hard-line mullahs who now insist that they should be veiled. Many freedoms have therefore been taken away by this untimely and unnecessary war.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alice Mahon: I must make some progress; we do not have too much time.
	The Iraqis feel humiliated and deeply resent their country being occupied. It is much worse where the United States troops are in control. We are possibly doing a better job than they are, but the resentment is still there.
	Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) asked how many ordinary Iraqis—men, women and children—had died since the peace had begun. I think it shameful that the Foreign Secretary admitted that he did not know; but we can obtain the information from the websites, and we read daily of the tragedies caused by the disastrous methods of control used by some of our US allies.
	On Sunday Peter Beaumont, a distinguished journalist on The Observer who is very knowledgeable about this part of the world, reported on the victims of methods used by the coalition. Such things happen daily in Iraq. He said:
	"Farah Fadhil was only 18 when she was killed. An American soldier threw a grenade through the window of her apartment. Her death, early last Monday, was slow and agonising. Her legs had been shredded, her hands burnt and punctured by splinters of metal, suggesting that the bright high-school student had covered her face to shield it from the explosion.
	She had been walking to the window to try to calm an escalating situation; to use her smattering of English to plead with the soldiers who were spraying her apartment building with bullets.
	But then a grenade was thrown and Farah died. So did Marwan Hassan who, according to neighbours, was caught in the crossfire as he went looking for his brother when the shooting began.
	What is perhaps most shocking about their deaths is that the coalition troops who killed them did not even bother to record the details of the raid with the coalition military press office. The killings were that unremarkable. What happened in Mahmudiya last week should not be forgotten, for the story of this raid is also the story of the dark side of the US-led occupation of Iraq, of the violent and sometimes lethal raids carried out apparently beyond any accountability."
	That is part of the daily life that people think is making things better for those in Iraq.
	It is almost impossible to imagine the level of bitterness and hatred that such actions breed among the Iraqi population. I believe that our service men and women have been placed in grave danger. I believe that the United Nations and the non-governmental organisations are exposed to an Afghan-type situation. When the International Red Cross is pulling out, we have some very serious problems.
	Suicide bombers are now operating in Iraq. These are certainly not just Saddam Hussein's disgruntled fedayeen. I think that we have opened Pandora's box. The resolution currently before the UN will not be acceptable. What country, what sane Government, would send their service men and women under that resolution? It keeps the United States totally in control and gives little military, economic or political power to anyone else.
	It is clear to everyone who has been involved in the debate that there was definitely no post-war plan. I still believe that the war was intended to allow the US Government to get their hands on Iraq's oil—and, shamefully, my Government were prepared to help them to do so. It has created division between Europe and America, and it has had profound consequences for the United Nations, which I think it has damaged. It was a dreadful and costly mistake. Questions will be asked for years to come about why we went to war. What we certainly do not have at present is an exit strategy, and as a Member of Parliament whose constituents contain young men and women in the services, I think that that is an absolute scandal. I want to know when they are coming home. I want the UN to be brought in—I think that essential—but it will not be brought in under the latest resolution.
	This has been a dangerous, reckless adventure, which has made the world a much more dangerous place for all of us. Those who misled and deceived us, and conspired to bring about this disastrous invasion, will carry the guilt. The rest of us should keep reminding the world that such recklessness should never happen again. We should use the United Nations and stick by international law.

Richard Younger-Ross: I welcome this debate and it is opportune that we are able to discuss this subject today. However, given the seriousness of the situation in Iraq, I find the motion's wording rather wishy-washy. Considering everything that is taking place, much more could have been included in the motion and we could have had a more pointed debate.
	Many very wise things have been said in the Chamber today. For example, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made some particularly pertinent points about the lack of preparation. Preparation was an issue that we raised with various Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Defence, in the run-up to the war. We were always assured that everything was going to be all right, everything was planned and all eventualities had been catered for. Those assurances have proved about as worth while as the dodgy dossier, in that the reality has proved rather different from the case that was made.
	Some predicted that there would be problems afterwards. I shall quote not from Liberal Democrat Members or Labour Members, but from John Major. The current leader of the Tory party may have some difficulties with that former leader, but I wish that he had listened to him a little more in the run-up to this debate; that way we might not have reached this current position. On 23 February, John Major was interviewed on BBC television. According to the BBC website, he said that there would be Armageddon in the middle east if the UK and the US attacked Iraq unilaterally. More pertinently, he went on to say:
	"The problems of winning the war are clear. The problems of winning the peace are going to be much more complex."
	Winning the peace is certainly far more complex.
	I contend that our troops are overstretched, both in and out of theatre. I am a member of the British armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is attached to the Army for the year. We were privileged to go to Basra in early June and to visit the training facility at the British Army training unit Suffield, in Canada, last week. While we were there, the forces on the ground were asked to do many essential tasks, which they did gladly. However, they involved supervising construction work, helping to purchase fridges for health centres, training policemen and many other tasks that could easily have been done by other agencies, had they been there.
	It was pointed out earlier in the debate—perhaps during the opening remarks—that the commanders kept asking, "Where is the Department for International Development? Where is the help that we expect from our Government with what we are doing? It is not there." It is no surprise that commanders are saying that they have adequate forces, but at the same time asking where DFID is. It was only a matter of time before the lack of assistance from DFID created stresses within the armed forces. The sending of extra forces is a response to that consequence.
	I point out to the Minister that extra armed forces alone will not resolve the situation. We have to get the restructuring in hand to make the country more prosperous. We must get the basic services working and back under Iraqi control if we are to resolve the situation. In many ways, the longer that takes the more difficult it will be.
	I referred to the overstretching of our forces in Iraq because of the tasks that they are being asked to undertake, and to the forces training at BATUS, whose training programme is called Operation Medicine Hat. Because of a lack of pre-training—as a result of Operation Telic, for example—Operation Medicine Hat has had to be cancelled. The troops are now training to a lower standard because the commanders do not feel that they will be able to reach the higher standard. For the Government Front Benchers to say that our forces are not being overstretched is palpable nonsense. Our forces are being reduced in capacity because they are not trained to the high standards that they were before.

Alex Salmond: If I understood him correctly earlier, the Defence Secretary said that no one should say that the troops are overstretched because it would demoralise them. In fact, every constituent in the armed forces that I have met has asked me to articulate the view that they are dramatically overstretched, which poses severe dangers for morale. Who does the hon. Gentleman believe—the Secretary of State for Defence or his own and my constituents in the armed forces?

Richard Younger-Ross: I take the point, which the hon. Gentleman makes exceedingly well. I take the view of my constituents and the forces that I have met in both Iraq and Canada, which is that our forces are overstretched. Saying otherwise is to look blindly and fail to see the reality. It is a problem that we need to face up to.
	I can provide an example of how the overstretching works on the ground. I referred in an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) to the World Food Programme warehouses just outside Basra. The British Army trained some guards from the naval academy and they had a base within the compound to keep an eye on things. They were able to prevent looting. With the changeover of regiments, the new battle group went in, the commander examined what he had to do and reordered his forces. He took the decision—it was rightly his to take—to remove that force, which had been permanently stationed within the warehouse, and allocate it to other tasks elsewhere.
	The World Food Programme was concerned and made representations to the Army and us that, if those forces were removed, the local guards would not be strong or disciplined enough, so looting would soon take place. The Ministry confirmed in a letter last week that that was indeed the case. Shortly after our forces were withdrawn, the walls were breached, looting took place and the British commander subsequently had to reverse the decision and put troops back within the compound to prohibit the looting. The problem facing the commander was that forces were limited and could be allocated only so far. Forces could have been allocated more readily if they were not doing the tasks that the Department for International Development and others should have been doing while they were there.
	There are major problems—for example, with the electricity, water and oil supplies and with clearing up munitions. The Foreign Secretary told us yesterday that Russian companies were asking to be part of the contracts for rebuilding the power stations. I would like to know why I was told in a parliamentary answer earlier this year that there had been no approaches from Russia regarding the power stations. If Russian companies are interested, why is the process taking so long?
	The power stations are not working to full—indeed, only 25 per cent.—capacity. Why cannot we get the components, probably stockpiled somewhere in Russia, into the power stations so that they can run at greater capacity? If they did so, there would be fewer electricity supply cuts, and without so many supply cuts, we would not have so many Iraqi children going to the munitions dumps, taking out boxes of mortars and emptying them on to the desert so that they can take the wood back to burn to boil the water in order to drink safely. How many Iraqi children have died as a consequence of the lack of power? Quite a lot. There is a poster campaign telling Iraqi children not to touch munitions, but the choice between clean water and opening a box of mortars to have the wood is a very hard one.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he makes his case well in respect of unexploded munitions. Has he any information about the effects of weapons that used depleted uranium, in both the first Gulf war and the more recent conflict? What is the incidence of cancers, especially in southern Iraq, as a result of the use of those weapons?

Richard Younger-Ross: I have no evidence on that. My information, as far as it goes, is that no link has yet been proven between depleted uranium and cancer.
	Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude my speech. Yesterday, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the resources that are being made available. He said that
	"the Department for International Development has committed £198 million altogether this financial year. Within that overall figure, an allocation of £20 million was recently made for short-term infrastructure projects in the south of Iraq."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 49.]
	That is fine, but it did not answer the question that I asked. I wanted to know what resources, including people, were being made available. When he responds to the debate, I hope that the Minister will say why only two police offices have been allocated to Iraq—one to Basra and the other to Baghdad. More officers are needed to train the local police.
	It is said that our forces are overstretched. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government will make available the resources to deal with the problems. Without those resources the prognosis is not bright or good. It is actually very gloomy.

Richard Page: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here for the start of the debate. I had the responsibility of being in the Chair for a private Bill Committee upstairs. I have yet to perfect the technique of being in two places at once.
	I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on choosing this subject for debate. It is amazing that the Government did not take the opportunity provided by a September return to hold a full debate on this very serious issue. They will stand condemned in the eyes of the public for that omission. I can understand why they should be embarrassed about the matter, but their duty was to hold such a debate.
	The House has speculated about the reasons for the war. The Prime Minister may love foreign excursions, or he may want to show what a good buddy he is to George W. Bush. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, it may be that there is a strong oil connection behind the war.
	Regime change is illegal, as Canning made clear a couple of hundred years ago. However, he said that a pre-emptive strike was permissible under certain circumstances, if it meant that the safety of the realm would be secured. He did not quite use those words, but the sentiment is clear, and it is a short step from there to the Government's argument about weapons of mass destruction, to which the Prime Minister clings like a drowning man clutching at a straw. I suppose that there is a parallel there somewhere.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State, was the first to refer to the dodgy dossier, and events have proved him absolutely right. I voted against the war. I did so with sadness, but I did not believe the dossier. I remember the Prime Minister's performances at the Dispatch Box: on more than one occasion, his face was contorted with conviction and honesty as he tried to convince the House, "I am Tony, trust me."
	Hon. Members of all parties told me that they did not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction, but that they could not believe that the Prime Minister could come to the House and say what he said unless he knew something that they did not. They said that that was why they supported the Government. What is the situation now, given that some 10,000 people are dead or wounded, and that billions of pounds worth of damage has been done? In the absence of a miraculous discovery, it is fairly obvious that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Also, it is clear that the plans to rebuild Iraq have been woefully inadequate, even though we were assured time and time again that the proper plans were in place.

John Randall: Like my hon. Friend, I voted against the war, but like him, I wavered when I heard the Prime Minister, thinking that I might be in the wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing for the good of the country would be a full inquiry? If we knew that the Prime Minister took his decisions on the best possible intelligence, I would always be prepared to say I was wrong.

Richard Page: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; indeed, that is how I meant to end my few immortal words to the House. Since he has said that for me, I shall just give the House the few bits remaining.
	I am amazed by the Government's surprise at terrorist and criminal activity in Iraq. It seems as if the Prime Minister writes a script then becomes aghast when the rest of the world does not follow it. There are no weapons of mass destruction—oh dear, there is a mistake. There was inadequate policy to rebuild Iraq after the war. And now they are surprised that terrorist activity is ruining all the reconstruction that should be taking place and they are asking more troops to risk their skins to save the Government's skin.
	We had better start looking through the right end of the telescope. I do not think that the west understands the strength of Islamic feeling, faith and fervour throughout the world. We try to impose our values and disciplines on the rest of the world, and we act surprised when that does not work as we want it to. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) just asked whether we are right to impose western democracy on Iraq, and she was absolutely right. On how many places in Africa have we have tried to impose our democratic processes? Has it worked? Has it stuck? Has it continued? Of course not.
	Nor do we understand the strength of Islam. If someone invaded this country, would we expect our patriots to undertake guerrilla activity against the invader? I think we would. We would be surprised if this great British island did not contain people who would say, "No. We want them out. We want to be back in charge of our own affairs." We call people terrorists, but to the Islamic movement and faith, they are holy warriors and martyrs, protecting their own and protecting their faith.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said we need quick training and a quick way out. I say amen to that.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has just said that the witching hour approaches. That is an interesting description of the time for winding-up speeches in the House of Commons, but I have no fears about exorcising ghosts and dispatching myths. If he cares to follow my speech, I hope that I shall not disappoint him after his catchy description.
	I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for pointing out how important it is to have the opportunity to hold this debate following the summer recess. It was nice of him to do so. We all feel the need to discuss this important issue, and the Opposition have been willing to donate our time for it. It is in everyone's interest.
	I rather liked some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). I cannot say that I greatly enjoyed the anti-American aspect of his speech, but he made one very telling point. One rarely hears from those of us in this profession that, as he said, politicians are usually part of the problem, not the solution. There was remarkable profundity in that, and we should all show his touch of humility on that point.
	I had rather less time for the many interventions made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He fails to understand that support for the war was not a blank cheque in support of the failures that came out of the war. Grown-up politics means constructive criticism, even from one's supporters, and that is very much what we are engaged in.

Alex Salmond: rose—

Caroline Spelman: I am not giving way on that point. The hon. Gentleman has burned up too much capital with his previous interventions.
	I especially want to single out the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who is a member of the Select Committee on International Development. He explained clearly the inconsistencies at the heart of DFID's policy, which led to the military situation in Iraq. I am glad that a DFID Minister is on the Treasury Bench now, although none was present for the whole of the rest of the debate. The Government chose to open and wind up the debate with Defence spokesmen, yet DFID and the Ministry of Defence are in this together, which is why the Opposition have speakers from both briefs. One Department cannot operate without the other.
	There were a number of interesting contributions from the Government Benches. However, I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who disputes the claim that there is overstretch. With his military background, I am sure that he will listen to a former Chief of the Defence Staff talking about overstretch in the Army. Soldiers take us—their political representatives at Westminster—on one side, as they did when I was in Afghanistan and the Gulf, and explain what overstretch feels like, what it means and the consequences for them and their families. To dispute that it exists is not a wise course.
	The deep concern of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for the people of Iraq is respected on both sides of the House. She brought us the important and troubling information that the ICRC is withdrawing from its work in Iraq. That the military situation has become so bad that the ICRC has felt the need to do that is extremely significant. In my experience, it is the one organisation that works in the direst military situations and has been willing to go through the lines to help people, so for it to withdraw from Iraq is very serious indeed.
	I hope that other hon. Members who contributed to the debate will forgive me if I turn to some of the main points. The debate has been interesting and it is important that we have had the opportunity to hold it after our break. Incredibly, in the last statement that we heard before our summer recess, the Government seemed to believe their spin about the military situation in Iraq: even then, they had persuaded themselves that it was better than the grim reality. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, actually said:
	"Life has regained an air of normality."—[Official Report, 3 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 552.]
	That is extraordinary. How hollow that assessment rings today. Events over the summer have shown what a shambles the Government's policy for post-conflict Iraq has become.
	Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that the situation on the ground is more serious than it was at the end of July. That is important. A senior member of the Government formally admitted in the House that things were deteriorating. That means that, as a coalition partner, we have presided over a deteriorating security situation. The closest we got to an admission of the seriousness of the situation from DFID was in its most recent update on Iraq on 5 September, which stated that security "remains tense". Given that many NGOs are withdrawing their staff from Iraq, that the UN is still operating from a different country and that we are sending more of our troops, that was, to say the least, an understatement.
	It is difficult for the Opposition to resist saying, "We told you so", but almost exactly a year ago, on 24 September, the shadow Foreign Secretary gave the Government four key points that would have to be taken into consideration before a decision to go to war. First, we must act with the international community. Secondly, the basis for any war must be legal. Thirdly, if war took place, it should be prosecuted effectively. Fourthly, there should be no war without a clear vision for the new Iraq.
	Just in case the Government were not listening back in September last year, we reminded them of the same four points before the conflict started in a debate in the House on 21 January. The Government chose to ignore our advice, with some of the most churlish and complacent answers to parliamentary questions that I have ever seen. For example, in October last year, I asked what discussions had taken place between the Department for International Development and its equivalents in the US, UN and EU about a possible conflict in Iraq, and I received the answer that they were not actively discussing those issues. That is very hard to believe if, as the former Secretary of State for International Development claimed on 17 June in her evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Prime Minister and President Bush had set a date for the war last September. What does that tell us about the Prime Minister's priorities for post-conflict Iraq if DFID was being sidelined from his discussions?
	In November, we held a contingency planning forum for the non-governmental organisations, the suggestions from which received barely an acknowledgement. In December and again in January, I asked what discussions had been held with Iraq's neighbours about refugees, and I got the same answer on both occasions—one word: none.
	On 30 January, the former Secretary of State for International Development stood right here in the House and said:
	"the preparations are as good as they can be."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1054.]
	How does that square with her telling "The Politics Show" on 1 June that
	"preparations for post-conflict were poor"?
	So, poor means good for the Government, does it? That failure has contributed to the present military situation in Iraq.
	Who is to blame? On 3 February, the Prime Minister told the House:
	"We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and as well worked out as a military plan."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
	However, being aware is not the same as doing something about it. Now, in an article in The Independent on Sunday this week, the former Secretary of State for International Development lays the blame firmly on the Prime Minister, by claiming that the threat from Iraq was exaggerated. She said:
	"On top of this, there is the total negligence of failing to prepare for the inevitability of a speedy military victory. Many, many lives have been lost and are being lost in Iraq because of this incompetence."
	In her resignation letter, the former Secretary of State for International Development said that
	"she agreed to stay in the Government to help support the reconstruction".
	However, it appears that that reconstruction did not happen. The Prime Minister's added mistake was to ask her to stay on.

Ivor Caplin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I am reaching the end of my speech. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in his winding-up speech, and we both have limited time.
	Not only have the people of Iraq been let down by Government negligence, but our own people feel let down by the Government exaggerating important information on which the decision to go to war was based. A good outcome can be wrestled from the situation in Iraq. Above all, we have a responsibility to work towards that, but we need answers to questions about why the military situation got worse instead of better.
	We welcomed the judicial inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly, for which we are all sorry, but out of respect for all who have died in Iraq, in part through the lack of contingency planning, we still need a full, independent inquiry into the Government's mishandling of the war. The inquiry should investigate not only the handling of intelligence material and the basis of the decision to go to war, but what happened in the Government to result in such a poor planning process. The Government can best address the military situation in Iraq by publishing a clear plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. Failure to do that will fuel the fears that they do not have a plan, and that does not bode well for the situation in Iraq.

Ivor Caplin: Today's debate has provided an important opportunity for the House to consider developments in Iraq during the parliamentary recess. I certainly welcome the nine Back-Bench contributions to the debate, which has been taken seriously by hon. Members of all parties.
	I must briefly tell the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that we had Defence questions yesterday when my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State and I were in the Chamber to answer questions on all defence issues, including those that arose during the parliamentary recess. Parliament did not recommence today; it started yesterday.
	I want to reflect on the efforts of those from the United Kingdom—military and civilian—who are trying to restore to Iraq the political security and economic stability that it needs and deserves. Many non-governmental organisations and charitable organisations from throughout the world, together with our armed services and staff from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, are working throughout Iraq. The House can be justifiably proud of the work that is taking place and all those who are prepared to work in sometimes trying or even dangerous conditions for the benefit of another nation. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to their courage and compassion and the important role that they are playing in the reconstruction.
	I want to go through some of the issues relating to the ongoing humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq. The Department for International Development has contributed £218 million for the reconstruction of Iraq, which is, of course, money from Her Majesty's Government. The United Kingdom is also providing Euro19 million—I know that Conservative Members will enjoy that—toward European Community funding in Iraq that is contributing to programmes relating to the humanitarian situation. The United Nations World Food Programme distribution system has been up and running since June. Small-scale voluntary returns of refugees from neighbouring countries are being facilitated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. As the hon. Member for Meriden knows, plans have been announced for the construction of emergency housing in southern Iraq for returning refugees and internally displaced people. The aim is to create 4,000 homes within six months at a cost of $27.5 million using local contractors and creating 20,000 jobs.
	Despite what has been said this afternoon, almost all hospitals in Iraq are now in operation, although several still face some water, sanitation, power and security difficulties—no Government Member denies that. However, coalition forces are providing security for several such hospitals and Iraqi security guards and the police force are being trained for that purpose. When necessary, Her Majesty's Government are supplying generators.
	US aid contractors are working to restore schools throughout Iraq. I am delighted that most schools were open by June this year and that about 5.5 million children were able to take end-of-year exams in June and July. The World Health Organisation reports that there is no overall shortage of medical supplies in Iraq, although there might be a shortage to treat several specific conditions. Some problems remain with the distribution of supplies to hospitals and clinics, which is largely a result of security problems. Routine vaccination for children has been restarted and a catch-up campaign run to vaccinate children who missed out during the conflict.
	Water supplies have been disrupted by sabotage, terrorism and looting, and the House should condemn such action, but the International Committee of the Red Cross and others, including British armed forces, have worked well to repair facilities and to provide water by tanker where supplies have been disrupted.
	I shall list some of the agencies that Her Majesty's Government are supporting through the Department for International Development. The World Food Programme receives £33 million; UNICEF £9 million; and UN Mine Action Service £4 million. The ICRC and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies together get £32 million.

Bernard Jenkin: We are impressed by those figures and do not dispute them. We acknowledge the money that is being spent. What the Government have failed to do, however, is to say why the infrastructure problems in Iraq, which are contributing to the unhappiness of the population, are only now being addressed. Why does that problem suddenly require reinforcements to overcome it? Why was it not in the original plan? Why did the Government not act earlier?

Ivor Caplin: That is all part of what was originally planned. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is timely and perhaps he will reconsider it in a moment. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who quoted the Leader of the Opposition from last year, I shall quote what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said on the BBC 6 o'clock news last night:
	"There is no reconstruction taking place."
	I am putting on the record the reconstruction that is taking place time and time again on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Ivor Caplin: Want to try again?

Bernard Jenkin: The delivery of emergency water supplies or food parcels does not constitute reconstruction. How many contractors are working in Iraq, or has the security situation deteriorated to such an extent that they dare not go in?

Ivor Caplin: I reject the hon. Gentleman's comments. [Interruption.] Yes, I do. I want to carry on with the list. It is extremely long and the House is going to hear it because of the serious allegation by the Leader of the Opposition that no reconstruction is taking place. I note that the hon. Member for Meriden did not repeat that accusation because she knows that it is not true.
	Save the Children UK is receiving £500,000; the Mines Advisory Group nearly £900,000; the BBC World Service £400,000; the World Health Organisation £6 million; and the UN Development Programme £7 million. The BBC World Service is an important facility for the production of radio programmes on humanitarian issues for the BBC Arabic Service that the people of Iraq can hear.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the Government and the Minister contend that the reconstruction in Iraq is going according to plan, when will the standard of living for the majority of Iraqis be the same as it was before the war?

Ivor Caplin: Two things. First, I am not pretending that everything is okay. There is much more work to do. Secondly, I note that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the leader of his party who said that no reconstruction is taking place. [Interruption.] Let me repeat it for Conservative Members: the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green claimed on the BBC 6 o'clock news last night:
	"There is no reconstruction taking place."
	I look forward to seeing the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box tomorrow opposite my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Alex Salmond: Let us accept that the Leader of the Opposition is an easy target, but if everything is going to plan, what is the Foreign Secretary going on about in his leaked memo by saying that 5,000 extra troops are required to stop strategic failure? Does that mean that we can expect either another 3,000 troops deployed or strategic failure, or is the Foreign Secretary wrong?

Ivor Caplin: Later in my comments I shall turn to the hon. Gentleman's earlier contribution. [Interruption.] I shall answer him when I am ready. I want first to turn to the Liberal Democrats.
	The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) referred to the security situation and asked whether we need to send more troops, so his question was not dissimilar to that just asked by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The Secretary of State talked about that in his opening remarks. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members have been listening because my right hon. Friend made the point that we must not forget that much of Iraq is peaceable and the majority of the country continues to support the coalition. However, we must send troops where they are necessary.

Paul Keetch: I heard exactly what the Secretary of State said today and yesterday—there are to be 1,200 additional troops and 1,000 will be on standby. The question that I and a number of others have asked is whether the Government can give an assessment as to whether that will be the final tranche of British troops deployed in Iraq. I understand that it is difficult to predict the future, but surely the armed forces need to know whether thousands more are to be sent to Iraq.

Ivor Caplin: Thankfully, Government policy is more flexible than that, and I cannot possibly answer that question because, as the hon. Gentleman will accept, we do not know what circumstances may arise. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the House could come to order.

Ivor Caplin: In the short time that remains—

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Ivor Caplin: Later, if I have time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to unexploded ordnance. Coalition forces have already cleared 350,000 unexploded munitions, and that was done primarily by UK and Danish teams.
	I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I feel that his horse-racing tips would have been better than his speech. He clearly did not understand my intervention about the UN Security Council. He kept going on about a UN force, but he will be aware that Kofi Annan has ruled out any suggestion of a blue helmet force. To clarify matters for the hon. Gentleman, I point out that the important donors conference in Madrid next month, to which I am sure he would like to give his support, is referred to in the draft text of the Security Council resolution that is currently on the table.

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Ivor Caplin: Go on then.

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister be kind enough to reflect on the fact that the majority of the speeches made by Back Benchers in this debate supported my point about the UN force and, indeed, our amendment, which unfortunately was not selected? Since the Minister chose to mention me, will he return to the question of what the Foreign Secretary was going on about in the leaked memo about 5,000 troops? Will he answer the question—can we expect more troop deployments or not? If it is all going according to plan, why cannot he answer that question?

Ivor Caplin: Well, I believe that the story to which the hon. Gentleman refers was in The Daily Telegraph, which I do not read.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Ivor Caplin: I am afraid that I cannot. There is no time.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Ivor Caplin: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has not been here all afternoon, but those who have, including the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and some of my colleagues, asked about the Iraq survey group. As hon. Members will know, the US is leading efforts to uncover the full extent of the misdeeds perpetrated by Saddam's regime. As well as unearthing efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, that will include investigations into possible war crimes and support by the regime for terrorism. The group will have all the expertise that it needs for each particular task, and some members will be former UN weapons inspectors. The UK contribution to the group will be between 60 and 100 personnel, both military and civilian.
	Questions were asked about troop deployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) asked about non-UK and non-US troops in Iraq. There are 14,700 such troops, of whom the majority, 9,200, are Polish, and we very much welcome the support of our soon-to-be EU colleagues in Poland. About 5,500 of the troops are from other nations, including good friends of the UK such as Denmark, Norway, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.
	Other questions have been asked about troop deployments by the hon. Member for Meriden and others. There was a review of troop numbers in July, which was accepted by the hon. Member for North Essex as being right and proper. At that time the review in theatre decided not to contribute any more troops. I emphasise the comments made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Local commanders in Iraq have requested the additional troop deployments that he announced in the written ministerial statement, and we shall continue to keep the matter under review with our commanders in the field in Iraq.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister accept that commanders on the ground said earlier this year that they were happy with the number of troops deployed because they were told that the Department for International Development would provide more resources? The Department has not done that, which is why we have the problem.

Ivor Caplin: I do not accept that. The clear emphasis of the earlier part of my speech was on the work of Her Majesty's Government through the Department for International Development and other agencies. It seems clear to me and to the whole House that the Department is working alongside our armed forces, and with the agencies that I listed earlier.
	I shall conclude by taking up three or four points that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) talked about overstretch in the reserves. Reservists exist to be used—I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that. That is in line with the strategic defence review. Indeed, it is what reservists are paid for, and that is why they are reservists. Currently, 2,200 reservists are in theatre, and no extra reservists were called out as part of yesterday's statement and deployment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)—I do not know whether he is in his place—is the chair of the parliamentary Labour party defence committee and he knows a good deal about some of these matters. He spoke about the plan to establish democracy in Iraq. The House must understand that two months after the formation of the Iraqi governing council, that council is now heavily involved in the key economic and political decisions. On 3 September, only about a week ago, the council appointed 25 interim Iraqi Ministers. From now on, Iraq's Government Ministers will be led by Iraqi politicians responsible for implementing policy and managing their budgets. That was worth welcoming by the hon. Members for Meriden and for North Essex, but they never referred to it.
	Even for those of my hon. Friends who may have opposed the military intervention, I think that it is now time to support those who are working so hard in Iraq to complete the task of its reconstruction. Our thoughts should remain with the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in Iraq. Fifty members of the United Kingdom armed forces as well as some civilians have died since 20 March. More have sustained injuries, some of them particularly serious. The whole House will wish them a speedy recovery.
	What those people, both military and civilian, have in common is that they were trying to improve the lives of their fellow human beings in Iraq and the security of the middle east and the wider world. We are determined that their sacrifice will not be in vain. We shall continue what we have begun in Iraq, and we shall see it through to the end.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of the military situation in Iraq.

Teacher Shortages

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that thousands of teaching posts have been lost in schools as a result of this year's funding crisis; condemns the Government for failing to respond early enough to reports of these redundancies, instead seeking to lay the blame on local authorities; further condemns the Government for not using any of the Department for Education and Skills' underspent money to alleviate this crisis; further notes that schools are having to ask parents for regular contributions to alleviate cash shortages; is concerned about the effect of these redundancies among teachers and support staff on the implementation of the Workload Agreement; and urges the Government to simplify the funding system for schools so that there will be no repeat of this year's problems in the recruitment and retention of teachers.
	I am sure that the House will understand, as I do, that the Secretary of State has a prior commitment at the TUC, which is why he is not with us today. I hope that he takes the opportunity to talk to some of the teachers' representatives who will no doubt be there. One reason for our calling this debate is to show that the Government are letting down not just those who rely on our public services but those who work in them. It is not only parents and children who have been hit by the Government's school funding crisis but teachers, who are being made redundant in schools up and down the country. I am not surprised that teachers are angry—they have been betrayed by the Government's false promises, and they will never trust them again.
	Ministers sometimes affect surprise that trust in the Government and especially the Prime Minister has disappeared. They seem puzzled that people no longer think that they are competent to run the public services. For an explanation they need look no further than the mess that they have created in our schools and their own performance in responding to this crisis since it became apparent earlier this year. This year, Ministers have provided the general public with a master-class in blunder and confusion. One moment we have protestations of innocence, while in the next breath the Government concoct a short-term and inadequate solution to the very problem that they just told the public did not exist at all.
	The history of the crisis is instructive. When questioned by the Select Committee on Education and Skills in July this year, David Normington, the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills, told us when he began to feel that there were going to be problems with school funding in the year ahead. His answer to the Select Committee was that it was after the Secretary of State's arrival
	"at the end of October and before Christmas, some time around then."
	We now know that the Department knew before Christmas that the crisis was going to hit our schools. After Christmas, at the Secondary Heads Association conference, the Secretary of State said that there was no problem. Indeed, he had previously told the Association of Chief Education Officers that simply throwing more money at them would not solve their problems. Such a request, he said, showing less than his usual charm,
	"just floods straight over my head. I don't listen to what you say quite frankly".
	I am sure that the association responded in kind.

Andrew Turner: Is my hon. Friend not being characteristically over-generous to the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Department? In fact, it would have been clear to anyone that a major upset in funding to local authorities would result in a major upset in schools' funding. That should have been clear well before the Secretary of State assumed his present post.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes a distinguished contribution to the Education and Skills Committee, and he is exactly right. Indeed, it ought to have been apparent to the Secretary of State and other Ministers that not only was the local government settlement likely to cause difficulties but many other matters under the direct control of the Government were going to cause problems, not least the Chancellor's insistence on increasing employers' national insurance contributions, which hit schools particularly hard—characteristically, 80 per cent. of a school's budget is taken up with staff costs—and the decision to increase employers' pension contributions, which came straight off the bottom line of school budgets. The bulk of the crisis has therefore been caused by decisions made inside government.
	I therefore agree with my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State's apparent ignorance of the fact that the crisis was going to happen, let alone the reason why it was happening, is quite extraordinary. I can only assume that he was convinced by the announcement by the Minister for School Standards that every local education authority
	"will be getting at least 3.2 per cent. per pupil increase for next year, with further increases in the following two years. No LEA will lose out in real terms as this new system is introduced".
	That was the Government's formal position in the early months of this year.

Chris Grayling: The logic of my hon. Friend's argument and the comments given in the Select Committee evidence to which he referred suggest that when Ministers sought to blame hard-working LEAs for the problem, claiming that they had held back money from schools and that that is where the root of the difficulty lay, they were presenting a disgraceful travesty of the reality and that their statements were, frankly, untrue.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is correct. I am afraid that it is sadly characteristic of the Government that, when they are faced with a problem, their first instinct is to look not for a solution, but a scapegoat. In this case, the scapegoat was to be local education authorities. I suspect that the reason why the Government gave up on their fruitless quest for a scapegoat had nothing to do with the merits of the case, but related to the fact that many Labour-controlled authorities throughout the country were pointing out that their schools were suffering in the same way as those of Conservative-controlled authorities, which became politically unhelpful to them.
	In May, in response to many LEAs of all political colours, protests from schools and the rising number of complaints about the crisis, the Department finally announced that it would allow schools to set deficit budgets and that they would be allowed to use their capital budgets for paying teachers' salaries. That was the first signal that the Department was beginning to accept the scale of the problem. However, I remind Ministers of what we said at the time: allowing schools to dip into money intended for capital projects as well as their reserves risks storing up even greater problems for the future. The scale of the problems that the Government have stored up with that approach to the problem is now beginning to become clear.

Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that any school that was planning major works, which would almost certainly occur during the summer holidays, would already have committed itself to the contractors by the time that the Secretary of State panicked and made this apparent concession?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right. Many head teachers have said that when a school is engaged in a major capital project, it is extremely likely that it will be carried out during the summer holidays. Given the need to book builders, it is likely that arrangements will have been made for this year long before the Government gave permission for the money to be spent elsewhere. Their gesture was therefore moderately futile as well as ill timed.

Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that we are now spending more on our school buildings and putting an end to the decaying, crumbling schools that existed under 18 years of Tory rule? The Tories never for one moment accepted that the standard of school premises had any effect on the education of our children.

Damian Green: If that is the best that Labour Members can come up with, they will have a lot of explaining to do to head teachers who have been told to use their capital budgets for revenue spending. Let me quote Nick Christou at East Barnet school, just one of the many affected head teachers, who has had to divert £90,000 from capital projects. He said:
	"The money that I had was for repairing the roofs because they are leaking all over the place—in the maths office and textile technology room for a start. But we have to use it and run with our leaky roofs for one more year. We will just have to put buckets underneath them."
	In Labour-controlled Ealing, schools are using between 70 and 100 per cent. of their reserves just to avoid another crisis this year. The Government's first response merely stored up a worse crisis for years to come.
	Even once the Department and its Ministers had accepted that there was a problem, there was still an enormous gulf between the reality of life in our schools and the purported facts coming from the Government. Even in June, some in the Government were unwilling to accept the scale of the problems. On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister
	"how many teachers are facing redundancy right now?"
	The Prime Minister replied:
	"According to the Department for Education and Skills, there are about 500 net redundancies."
	We now know that that answer grossly underestimated the problems that schools have been facing. As my right hon. Friend said at the time:
	"The reality is that the figures for redundancies are that, this year, three times as many will face the sack as last year." —[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 673–74.]

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of potential redundancies is being masked? What would he say to those at my local school, Chalfonts community college, which has been forced to send out a letter to parents and guardians asking for £20 per family per term to enable it to maintain a full teaching staff and equipment to further the children's education? Is it not true that all those teachers are facing redundancy unless they get those parental contributions because the Government have kept money back from our schools?

Damian Green: Absolutely. All that I can say to my hon. Friend is that I hope that Ministers will apologise to the head, teachers, parents and governors at her school and at many others that face similar problems.
	By midsummer, even Ministers had stopped trying to bluster their way out of the crisis. Extraordinarily, one of their partial solutions was to scrap one of their own flagship policies—the school achievement award. That was truly bizarre. Only in May, the Minister for School Standards had said:
	"It is right to reward the staff whose work helps pupils to learn and today's awards celebrate their achievements".
	Two months later, the Secretary of State announced that too many teachers had been allowed to go to the top pay levels too quickly. In the next month, he announced that the Government would be scrapping the policy that was, according to them, intended to
	"celebrate the work of the entire school community".
	Clearly, 2003 is not the year to be a teacher under this Labour Government. Last week, the Secretary of State finally came close to apologising to the thousands of children facing the new school year with fewer teachers. In a webcast to welcome the new academic year, he said:
	"The government make mistakes, certainly I do, my colleagues do, and the handling of the schools' funding last year was a good example of that which I am determined to put right this year."
	In these circumstances, with so many teachers experiencing redundancy or facing the threat of redundancy, I am amazed that the Government have the nerve to run expensive TV advertising campaigns for teacher recruitment. There is something surreal about watching a news programme that contains an item about teachers losing their jobs just before an advert urging people to become teachers. I congratulate Ministers on their latest advert, which features large numbers of headless people. As a piece of post-modern irony commenting on the Department's performance this year, it cannot be beaten.
	If the Secretary of State had admitted culpability when these problems first arose, and had created a real solution instead of merely putting off the inevitable, perhaps we would not be in a situation in which one school in five are asking parents to make contributions to keep the school system going—my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) gave an example—and in which a survey by the Secondary Heads Association and The Times Educational Supplement found that 2,700 teaching posts had not been filled and that 700 teachers have been made redundant. Only months ago, the Prime Minister was talking of losses in the order of 500 teachers.

Alan Campbell: To clarify that survey for the information of the House, did it say that more jobs were created last year than were lost?

Damian Green: I would be pleased to read out a lot more from The Times Educational Supplement if the hon. Gentleman likes. Its headline is: "Staff cuts running into thousands", and it gives what it calls the "critical numbers", stating that 2,729 teachers and 1,152 support staff have not been replaced because of lack of funding. [Interruption.] The Minister for School Standards urges me to carry on. I need no urging. The TES goes on to say that there have been 730 teacher and 301 support staff redundancies; that there are 1,881 unfilled teacher posts; and that, of teachers appointed, 4,246—16.6 per cent.—were judged unsatisfactory by heads.

David Miliband: I am pleased that I, too, brought that copy of The Times Educational Supplement with me. Is it not the case that it reports that 3,548 additional new teachers are being hired, which is a net increase of 89 on the numbers that the hon. Gentleman quoted?

Damian Green: The Minister also knows that the increase in the school population means that approximately 1,000 teachers are needed to keep pupil-teacher ratios steady and that the Government have failed to do that. Perhaps he will turn to the inside pages of The Times Educational Supplement, which paint an even bleaker picture. [Interruption.] The job adverts appear in a separate supplement because teacher retention is so difficult under the Government.
	The head of the Royal Grammar school in High Wycombe has pledged £15,000 of his salary to ease his school's budget problems. The school caretaker is offering £5 a month. In East Anglia, one comprehensive school is considering charging for textbooks. One school in London—the London Oratory, which, I dare say, is familiar to senior members of the Government—is asking parents for an increase of £5 in the monthly £30 contribution that they already make. The school made it clear that the call for extra money is a direct result of the funding cuts for many schools in southern England that the Government announced early this year. The Oratory started term last week with fewer teachers.

Gillian Shephard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Damian Green: Of course I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Secretary of State.

Gillian Shephard: Labour Members, notably Ministers, display some reluctance to accept the facts that my hon. Friend is presenting to the House. Here is a fact: at the Old Buckenham high school in my constituency, more children are on the roll this term than last term and there are two fewer teachers. Is that factual enough for Ministers? It is an example of what is happening throughout my constituency: more children and fewer teachers. Moreover, any sicknesses in the school mean that classes will have to double to 60 pupils. Is not that a marvellous achievement by the Government?

Damian Green: My right hon. Friend is right that Ministers appear peculiarly reluctant to accept the facts that everyone else acknowledges to constitute an accurate description of life in our schools today. Their immediate reaction to the Secondary Heads Association survey was simply to rubbish it. It was followed by a survey of local education authorities in The Guardian that showed similar results. Ministers must stop pretending that the rest of the world is out of step.
	In 55 local authorities, more than 1,000 full-time teaching posts have been lost through redundancies and schools opting not to replace teachers who leave for other reasons. If that pattern were repeated in all local education authorities, approximately 2,500 teaching posts would be lost. We have a consistent set of numbers, which everyone, except the Government, recognises.
	In the Minister's authority, 17 teaching posts have been lost. The LEA told The Guardian:
	"Schools have set budgets by using their high levels of carry-forward balances."
	In the Secretary of State's authority, 11 teaching posts have been lost and French and German classes are being cut in schools, which can simply no longer afford them. The Government tell us that they want to revive language teaching in schools, yet schools are having to cut such classes because of the Government's funding policies.
	Not only teachers but support staff are suffering. According to The Times Educational Supplement, on top of the 301 support staff who have been made redundant, 1,152 support staff have not been replaced because of lack of funding. There are also problems with cuts in the capital budget that the Government have forced on schools. One can only spend one's capital once.
	What do Ministers say to Roland Waller, the head of Morley High in Leeds, who said:
	"We have protected staffing by cutting repairs and maintenance to the bone this year. Upgrades to classroom furniture will be virtually zero and our rolling programme of redecoration and refurnishing has been curtailed."
	Only yesterday, Anne Welsh, the new president of the Secondary Heads Association, said that this year's cash crisis would have repercussions for many years. She said that problems were exacerbated because
	"It is increasingly difficult to persuade young teachers to take on the responsibility of middle management roles, which is very worrying given that most in leadership positions are within 10 years of retiring."
	We are not therefore considering a one-year crisis; it will linger in schools for years.
	The crisis throws into severe doubt the success of the Government's workload agreement with teachers, which is supposed to be their big reforming idea of this Parliament. It will work only if there are enough teachers and teaching assistants to make it work. I was therefore fascinated by the Government's amendment, which mentions 25,000 extra teachers. Ministers like to talk about such figures. We have heard some of that from those on the Government Benches already this afternoon.
	Let us look at the facts as they have been revealed today by the Department itself. The number of full-time, regular, qualified teachers has fallen by 1,400 over the past 12 months. These are not my figures: they are the Department's figures, published today. The number of overseas and unqualified teachers has quadrupled since this Government came to power. Without raiding countries that need their own teachers and using unqualified teachers, the Government would not be able to staff our schools, even before the work load agreement comes into effect.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman referred to robbing other countries that need their teachers. Which countries is he referring to?

Damian Green: Jamaica, in particular. The Jamaican Government have protested to our Government that our country is enticing away too many of Jamaica's teachers to work in our country. The hon. Gentleman is a decent man: I am sure that he worries about relatively poor countries, and that he does not want this country to be scouring the world for teachers from poorer countries that need their own teachers in their own country.
	Of course, school funding will be affected. West Berkshire council has calculated that the agreement will cost it an extra £2 million this year, with another £1.7 million in September 2005. I believe that it is a Liberal Democrat council, and it states that the cost of the work load agreement reform will be £78.20 per pupil in primary schools, and £100.93 in secondary schools.
	The evidence of the Department's permanent secretary has made it clear that one of the main reasons behind this problem is that the funding system is far too complicated. In his exchange with the Education and Skills Committee, he was asked for his definition of the formula spending share and, with commendable honesty, he answered:
	"I am not sure I know".
	If the permanent secretary does not know how the system works, it is hard to imagine how heads and governors—let alone parents—are supposed to know how it works.

Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the reasons why the Government find it so difficult to understand exactly how serious the problem is: for the first time in my 39 years in this House, the Secretary of State was unwilling to meet Members of Parliament and representatives of local schools to explain the seriousness of the situation? The junior Minister was going to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) today but that meeting was put off because of the debate. We are now told that it will be yet another two months before we even meet him. Would it not be infinitely better if the Secretary of State would meet Members of Parliament—as all Secretaries of State have always done in my experience?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a shame if the Secretary of State will not meet him. I am sure that when he does reorganise his meeting—with whichever Minister—it will be extremely fruitful.
	Before the recent crisis, I do not think that anyone inside or outside this House thought that the current system was simple enough to understand or, more to the point, fair enough to deal justly with the different needs of different areas of the country.
	What is needed to remove this unnecessary confusion is a far simpler method of funding our schools in a manner that will give each school greater autonomy and remove many of the complications that exist in the current system. The Government have not yet made it clear whether they intend to cut out local education authorities altogether from their new system—which I assume they will announce in the next few weeks.
	Whatever the Government do needs greater predictability and simplicity to remove the need for central Government to set minimum levels of delegation and to ring-fence budgets. That would mean that many of the problems that we have seen this year would have less chance of recurring in the future. Crucially, it would also mean that heads and governors could choose their own priorities, and not simply reflect what Ministers want. It would also allow parents to compare funding levels in different areas, force Governments to defend the weighting applied to different factors, and allow good local authorities to use savings from administration for improved services by spending the money where it matters—in our schools.
	Just 15 months on from the announcement of the comprehensive spending review, which was supposed to solve the financial problems in our schools, Ministers are presiding over cuts, redundancies, deficits, short-term sticking-plaster solutions and rising anger from teachers and parents alike. It is a terrible indictment of ministerial incompetence that they did not see this crisis coming, spent months trying to find a scapegoat instead of a solution and are still floundering around hoping that they have not stored up further problems for years to come. They stand condemned in schools up and down this country. I commend our motion to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Miliband: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"applauds the significant increase in funding made available by the Government to schools since 1997 and the increase in standards schools have achieved; recognises that schools have had extra costs as well as extra investment this year; welcomes the statement to the House on 17th July by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announcing measures to bring stability to school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06, including a guarantee of a minimum per pupil increase in funding for schools, and maintaining and inflation-proofing the income that schools will receive from the Standards Fund; supports the consultation his Department is undertaking with representatives of head teachers and local education authorities; welcomes the fact that there are around 25,000 more teachers in schools and over 80,000 more support staff than there were in 1997 and more teachers with Qualified Teacher Status in schools than at any time since 1984; acknowledges three years of rising recruitment to teacher training and the 3,000 more graduates who have accepted training places than this time last year; and welcomes a 25 per cent. fall in the number of unfilled teacher vacancies between 2002 and 2003."
	I am delighted to have an opportunity, at the beginning of the school term, to put on parliamentary record the Government's congratulations to students on their exam and test results this summer, and also our thanks to teachers up and down the country whose hard work has contributed to those results. We in the Labour party say without reservation that when teaching improves and students work hard, we should welcome rising standards and not denounce them. This year we have seen world-class standards in primary schools maintained, good improvement at key stage 3, steady progress by those aged 16, and excellent results at A-level and in vocational studies. Those qualifications are well worth the paper on which they are written, and the country should applaud such results. The reactionary curse that somehow more will mean worse has no place in the 21st century.
	I also welcome the opportunity to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said here on 17 July. Some schools face significant funding problems this year; we are determined to work with them, and with their local education authorities, to overcome those difficulties. I will address the problems directly, because in some schools they are serious, but it is wrong to pretend that every school and every LEA in the country faces them.
	Labour is proud that the last teacher census featured 25,000 more teachers than six years ago, and 13,000 more than two years ago. We applaud the growth in support staff numbers: there are over 80,000 more than six years ago. We are encouraged by the fact that the teacher vacancy rate fell to 0.9 per cent. in 2002–03, with 1,130 fewer vacancies than the year before. We also welcome the fact that the latest teacher training numbers, for 2003–04, are up by nearly 3,000 on last year.
	We note that, even according to the partial Times Educational Supplement survey on which the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) hung so much of his case, more teachers were hired than were laid off, with four times as many support staff hired as were leaving their posts. The annual survey of teacher numbers is conducted in January, and the results are published in spring. It will give definitive figures for this academic year. It is interesting that both the Local Government Association and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers have said that it does no one any good to exaggerate the problems, and both report an aggregate position similar to that of previous years. We recognise that there have been serious problems, however, which is why we want to overcome those problems. We share responsibility with LEAs for raising funds and for distributing them.

Andrew Turner: The Minister quoted the view that there was no point in exaggerating the problems. Will he tell us whether the 25,000 figure refers to full-time equivalent qualified teachers, and, if it does not, will he tell us what is the figure relating to such teachers?

David Miliband: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the 25,000 figure refers to full-time equivalent teachers with qualified teacher status or qualifications from other countries equivalent to such status, or to teachers on employment-based routes into training. We discussed this at Question Time in June, and the figures are absolutely clear: qualified teacher status numbers are higher than they have been at any time since 1984. There is also a significant number of teachers with equivalent qualifications from other countries, as well as teachers on employment-based routes.
	There have been problems this year. Let me summarise the reasons for them. Total education funding for 2003–04 has risen by £2.7 billion. I shall return later to the irony of the fact that a Conservative party that refuses to support the increased spending now says that it is not enough. While investment has risen, however, so have costs, by some £2.45 billion. A teacher who joined the profession in 1997 is now 60 per cent. better off in real terms. There has been a one-off increase in pension contributions this year, as well as the national insurance changes mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashford.
	Increased costs mean that however great the increase in investment, overall headroom this year is limited. At local level—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—pupil numbers are falling significantly in the primary sector for the first time since the introduction of the local management of schools. There are 55,000 fewer pupils this year than last in the primary sector; next year, there will be 60,000 fewer. That means funding reductions for some schools. Meanwhile, the decentralisation of the ring-fenced standards fund that was long urged by teachers and local government proves—how can I put it?—to be extremely popular in theory, but in practice, because it means the re-direction of direct grants, some schools are hit hard. Furthermore, in a significant number of local education authorities schools did not receive the full amount indicated under education formula spend, and spending on centrally retained pupil services rose faster than budgets devolved to schools. Also, the lateness of information for schools, for which this Department and local authorities bear responsibility, has made budgetary planning difficult.

John Horam: A promise has been made—certainly to London MPs—that information will be brought forward and decisions taken earlier in the round. When will that be?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a matter that I shall come to in a moment. Essentially, indications of local authorities' passporting intentions have been brought forward by at least a month, and the School Teachers Review Body will report in early November, rather than in early February.

David Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the two figures for the reduction in primary school numbers that he has just announced—55,000 this year and 60,000 next—represent about 1 per cent. of enrolled primary school numbers, but that the total reduction in costs for the relevant schools will be significantly less than the 1 per cent. that they will encounter when the grant formula allocates the amounts to them?

David Miliband: The answer is that that depends on the formulae that the various local authorities have for reflecting pupil numbers in the distribution of funds to schools.
	Let me turn to how we will work with heads and local government to fulfil our commitment to ensuring that, in 2004–05 and 2005–06, stability and growth are delivered on the ground. The number one demand from head teachers is confidence for future years to help them manage their way through this difficult but unique year. On 17 July, the Secretary of State announced the initial steps, the first of which is a commitment to augmenting the floor increases paid to LEAs with a minimum per pupil guarantee for every school in the country—the first time that this has ever been attempted. The second step is the continuation of the standards fund and other grants for 2004–05 and 2005–06, giving extra direct help of about £400 million a year for school budgets. The third step is earlier notification of funding decisions and better support for the management of funding, on the way to delivering the three-year budgets for schools which many heads believe will be an enormous step forward in the management of their funds.
	There is also a commitment to full passporting of money into education and a two-and-a-half year pay deal, with rigorous management of the upper pay spine. I can report to the House that there is close and ongoing co-operation with local government and representatives of teachers and head teachers on these issues, and I pay tribute to the constructive and serious way in which this work is being done.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister now apologise to all those hard-working and committed LEAs, such as mine in East Sussex, which gave a robust rebuttal to his and the Secretary of State's allegation that they were hanging on to money bound for schools? Will he accept that those allegations turned out to be totally without foundation?

David Miliband: I can only say that, in the round and partly because of the difficulties of notification to which I referred, significant funds certainly were still being held at local authority level in April or May. I do not know about the individual circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am very happy to write to him about whatever difference of opinion exists.
	I want to explain the fruits of the efforts being made by the Department, head teachers and local government. In the next month, we will be able to announce the level of the per pupil guarantee and the decisions on the standards fund. In November, the Government will announce the local government settlement, and the School Teachers Review Body will report its pay recommendations significantly earlier than usual. We intend that, by the end of December, every school will know of its LEA's passporting intentions. This is a considered and effective process to deliver continued growth and progress in the education system. As the Secretary of State made clear in July, at each stage we will sustain the national agreement on work force reform. That agreement is phased over three years, matching the profile of spending increases. I am pleased to report that unions representing teachers, all head teachers and all support staff remain resolutely committed to that work force agreement. That is an example, if I may say so, of the social partnership that is talked about on both sides of the House, and which is certainly being talked about in Brighton at the moment.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister further clarify the minimum per pupil upgrading? Will it be based on the amount paid per pupil this year after cuts—or after increases paid for out of capital budgets—or will it be based on the amount paid in the previous year before the result of the turmoil?

David Miliband: That is precisely what we are discussing with head teachers. We obviously want to reflect as closely as we can the actual position in schools throughout the country. The per pupil increase that will be announced at the end of September or early October is designed to provide a fair reflection of the position on the ground.
	I was talking about the work force agreement. We are agreed with our partners that the costs of the agreement rise over three years, but it is also important not to accept that every change in the way teachers work requires additional resources. That is why the national remodelling team is working with heads and, critically, with governors to share good practice in the management of teacher work load. The Conservative motion suggests, I think for the first time, support for the principles of the work load agreement. If the Conservatives are committed to its principles, I welcome their conversion, albeit a late one, to changes that will benefit teachers and pupils alike.
	The motion refers tentatively to underspends in the Department, but the theme was not developed. However, anticipating that it might be a strong point, I asked the Department to dig further into the issue and it would benefit the House if I set out the position clearly. The motion refers to the public expenditure White Paper published by the Treasury, in which a figure of £1.8 billion is mentioned. I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension that somehow that amount is waiting to be spent. That money is not underspent, but being spent. The sum of £900 million was allocated to departmental programmes, including schools, for 2003–04 and beyond. That was made clear in May. The sum of £350 million was spent in 2002–03, but billed by outside contractors in 2003–04. More than £300 million is being spent on projects such as sure start, but only after rigorous quality criteria are met; and £200 million is being committed to school budgets for future years. The Department is committed to spend what it is given for the three years of the spending review period—and we are committed to spending it well, to secure quality as well as quantity.

Ken Purchase: These are very impressive and helpful figures to learn about—[Interruption.] They are very convincing, but has the Minister made any assessment of the surplus funds held by a considerable number of schools on account of the fact that local authorities no longer financially manage the funds that go to schools generally? Does he have any idea of how that money could be released for this particular year?

David Miliband: It is always encouraging to receive my hon. Friend's praise, however gently it is disguised—faint praise. He makes a serious point, however. From memory, the figure quoted for school balances was about £1.2 billion, but those balances will have been reduced substantially over the past six months. I believe that local education authorities collect the figures about once a year. The annual survey will provide a clearer sense of the position and we can judge the circumstances on that basis.

Ken Purchase: Can the figures be released?

David Miliband: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the figures are released, not kept a secret.
	The Department and Ministers are, as I hope I have been able to demonstrate, in close touch with schools and local education authorities that face problems this year. We take their concerns seriously and will work to sort them out. However, I suggest that one group from whom lessons are unlikely to be learned is the Conservative party. In a debate in Westminster Hall, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), freely admitted that Conservative Governments did not do enough for education in the past. He can say that again. Over 18 years of Conservative Government—between 1979 and 1997—47,000 teaching posts were lost. That is what the hon. Gentleman euphemistically referred to as "not doing enough".

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative spokesman was a little unfair to his party's track record? The support—moral, financial and legislative—that his Government gave to the private sector in education accounts for its steady growth in the Conservative years.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend tempts me into very productive terrain. In a debate in a Committee considering a statutory instrument in July—I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend was in the Chair at that point—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West made it clear that he was proud of what Conservative Governments had done in the 1980s to support the private sector, and that he was committed to returning to some of those policies. I am sure that we will return to that matter in the future.

Peter Pike: Is not it a fact that the decline in school teacher numbers happened at the same time as there was a massive decline in the standard of school premises? Schools really did decay and crumble during 18 years of Tory rule.

David Miliband: I think that the figure on the tip of my hon. Friend's tongue is that, by 1997, £700 million a year—or £30,000 per school—was being spent on schools in capital terms. The figure is now £3.8 billion a year, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give way?

David Miliband: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but I hope to edify the House with some more information about Opposition policies.

Andrew Selous: If the Minister believes that a growing independent sector is a sign of failing Government supervision in schools, will he explain why independent numbers are growing at present, under his Government?

David Miliband: First, I did not say that. Clearly, the Government are committed to making the state sector as good as possible. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was making.
	However, I want to develop the point. Although the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that Conservative Governments had not done enough for education in the past, the hon. Member for Ashford said in July 2002 that the Opposition were not "in principle opposed" to spending more on education. His deputy, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, went further. In a debate on school funding on 29 April, he made the extraordinary claim that the Opposition had "no quibbles" with the extra spending on schools inaugurated by the Government.
	I looked up the word "quibble" in the dictionary. It means to make trivial objections. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was right about one thing: the Opposition's objections to the increased spending have been far from trivial: they have been fundamental, ongoing, dogmatic and ideological at every stage. While the hon. Member for Ashford said that the Opposition did not oppose spending on education, his party's official position was quite the opposite.
	The Conservative policy guide was published last October. I commend it to the House. It had the ironic title "Leadership with a Purpose". Need I say more than that it was written by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), before he stormed out of the shadow Cabinet in protest at the leadership that he was promoting? Even so, let us listen to what the guide says. In contrast to the hon. Member for Ashford, it states:
	"Conservatives do not support the tax and spending the Government has announced."

Damian Green: That is absolutely consistent.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman says that that is absolutely consistent, but how can it be consistent for him to say that the Conservatives do not oppose the spending increases, but for his party's policy guide to say that they do? That seems quite a contradiction.
	The Leader of the Opposition then went further. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the quiet man said:
	"I explicitly on three separate occasions when asked said we will not match Government spending plans."
	The hon. Member for Ashford says one thing, yet his party policy is the absolute opposite.

Damian Green: Let me resolve the confusion in the Minister's mind. What we oppose is the way that his Government waste huge amounts of taxpayers' money. We think that money spent in the education budget should go to schools and be spent on decisions taken by heads and governors and teachers. It should not be wasted on bureaucracy, in a way that causes teaching redundancies all over the country even when the Government are taxing people more than ever before. It is the way that the Government tax and spend that lets them down. That is why the British people do not trust the Minister or the Prime Minister any more.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will regret prolonging this discussion because I can assure him that we shall return to the point again and again in the years ahead. He obviously was not listening to what I said, because his own policy guide says in clear terms that the Conservatives do not support the tax and spending increases that the Government have announced. His own leader explicitly said:
	"We will not match Government spending plans."
	I do not know what could be clearer than that.

Cheryl Gillan: rose—

David Miliband: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon, but I shall ask her to intervene once I have made my point.
	It is not just the Opposition's words but their actions that tell their position. Every time they have had a chance to vote on spending increases they have not, it is true, quibbled, but they have sought to tear up the spending increases and deny them to schools. On money to fund the new deal for schools, which will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), the Opposition voted against. On cutting class sizes, they voted against. The 1998 spending review, which raised school spending by £340 per pupil, they denounced as reckless. The 2000 spending review raised spending by a further £370 per pupil but was described as irresponsible and imprudent. The 2002 spending review delivering this year's rises in teachers' pay was denied the support of the Opposition.
	The Conservative party is a party of serial quibblers, serial opposers, and serial voters against money for schools, money for teachers, money for books and money for buildings.

Cheryl Gillan: I seek some clarity from the Minister. He says that everything in the garden is rosy and that so much money is coming down the line from the Government that our schools, teachers, governors and parents have nothing to worry about. Can he give me a clear recommendation for the parents of the children who go to Chalfonts community college? Would he tell those parents not to pay the £20 per term for their children's teachers and equipment, or would he tell them to pay the money because it is necessary? May we have some clear guidance on that? Is the instruction to the parents to pay the money to maintain the school or not?

David Miliband: I could not have made clearer at the beginning of my speech the fact that there are serious problems in some schools. I must have said so up to half a dozen times. Of course I do not pretend that everything is—

Cheryl Gillan: Should they pay?

David Miliband: The hon. Lady was very patient in waiting to ask her question, but might show a bit of patience in waiting for the answer. I did not say that everything in the garden is rosy. It would be absurd of me to make a recommendation to parents of a school in her constituency without knowing any of the details. Indeed, it would be quite wrong of me to do so in any case. For many years schools have undertaken fund-raising drives in all sorts of ways. It would be odd of Ministers to give them commands. I do know that the efforts of parents and the wider community to raise funds for schools are much better suited to a situation in which funding is rising rather than falling.

Damian Green: It is not.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman says so, but we have been through this before. When his party was in office between 1992 and 1997 spending fell by around £100 per pupil in real terms.
	I do not want to try the patience of the House, so I shall try to come to a conclusion.

James Purnell: I do not think that my hon. Friend is trying anyone's patience. Does he recall visiting Hyde technology college in my constituency, and has he seen that results there have gone up from 50 per cent. of students gaining five A to C grades to 63 per cent. of students doing so? Will he agree to visit some more schools in my constituency so that he can try to have the same effect?

David Miliband: I wish I could have that effect on every school in every constituency that I visit. I do remember my visit to Hyde technology college, which is an extremely impressive school boasting committed teachers, governors and pupils. I am delighted to hear of the significant increase in GCSE performance. We announced A to C rates for entries at GCSE in August, and the evidence that I heard from Labour Members in the Lobby last night was that rates of achievement of five A to C grades by pupils around the country far exceed that. The evidence that my hon. Friend has just adduced is relevant in that regard. I take seriously his further offer of hospitality and look forward to trying to take it up on some occasion.
	Schools face serious problems this year, as I have repeatedly said, but we are determined to overcome those problems in partnership with head teachers and local authorities. This is the year when the majority of secondary schools will achieve specialist status. This is the year when 1,400 of our toughest schools receive the leadership incentive grant. This is the year when capital investment tops £3.8 billion a year and when teachers have the first contractual change in their work load for a generation.
	According to all the international comparisons, we are doing well, but the Government are determined to do better. That is our commitment and I commend our amendment to the House.

John Pugh: May I apologise for not being my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)? I am not entirely sure that is something for which I should apologise, as there is little I can do about it, but I wanted to underline the point that the debate will be much poorer without his searching, yet always constructive, critique of Government policy. Even as I speak, my hon. Friend is pushing back the frontiers of education in some other place—not, of course, the other place—and I am bereft of his counsel.
	I feel somewhat exposed standing here without a Dispatch Box or my customary barrier to lean on, and heavily outnumbered to boot. However, as the Government have adopted an anti-bullying strategy, perhaps I can afford to relax—[Interruption.]. An hon. Member points out that the strategy is only for the under-fives.
	Unsurprisingly, the proposition is that the Government are a bad lot. They have got school funding wrong, have tried to blame local authorities and, in triggering redundancies, have jeopardised promising agreements to reduce teacher work loads and created problems for teacher recruitment and retention. That, I understand, is the objection, as set out by the Tory motion.
	That thesis was significantly improved by the Liberal Democrat amendment, which unfortunately was not chosen. Our amendment pointed out that previous Conservative Governments created, if anything, bigger financial problems for schools. That sophistication adds a measure of fairness and historical perspective to the original motion.
	The Government amendment appears to consist of a recognition of the problem, a clutch of partial truths and a dose of self-congratulation. I fail to see why the refined Liberal Democrat amendment should not commend itself to any rational Member of the House and I shall endeavour to provide evidence.
	When it became apparent that schools had problems, the Government clearly, and perhaps genuinely, thought that their ambitious plans to pass money to schools had been foiled by avaricious or acquisitive local authorities, which might have used the money for other purposes. On 2 May, and even before, they began an assault on local authorities that must, I guess, retrospectively embarrass Ministers and which they will not want repeated or even alluded to in this place. However, although it is tactless of me to mention it, we need to dwell on it for a while.
	By the time the Select Committee on Education and Skills had got around to examining the fiasco and Mr. Normington had given his evidence, even the Government's advisers were talking not of the perfidy of local authorities but of the failure of modelling—whatever that means. In essence, in ordinary parlance, they had got their sums wrong.
	It is unkind of me to rake the matter up, as I am sure that Ministers would like to bury the infamous press release of 2 May, which contained the amusingly ironic statement:
	"The purpose of this exercise is not to apportion blame."
	It seems to be commonly agreed that if one took the additional money given by the Government—and there was additional money—subtracted the effect of increases for national insurance and pensions, the effect of the salary improvements this year and last year, the differential effect of the new local government finance system, the effect of the withdrawal of the standards fund, added inflation and rolled it all up, some schools would receive no real-terms increase. That is not only possible, it actually happened. There is incontestable evidence that it happened in many parts of the country and the extent is becoming increasingly clear.
	Only this week, a paper from a constituency adjacent to mine carried a telling headline, which was promoted neither by me nor by my party. It stated simply:
	"Whitehall dunces get new term budget sums wrong."
	That is a fairly accurate summary, in journalistic speak, of what actually happened. That it happened is evidenced by the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 17 July, which was penitent but, in the view of many, possibly not penitent enough. There was no mention of duplicitous local authorities, but no real apology either. In fact, it contained some rather robust warnings of the future consequences of any duplicity, imagined or real. On the positive side, schools were given guarantees, stability over a period and early notice of their budgets, and they were cushioned against fluctuations and inflation—all entirely desirable features in any financial environment—but everything hinges on something called the school funding spending share, which Ministers will fix rigorously.
	I know two things about the new deal for schools. First, it will be discussed with what are now known as the Government's partners in education. Secondly, the aspiration is that things will be transparent. Sceptics and perhaps even cynics will see the Treasury's hand in that, because things are not transparent. Could it be that the Treasury or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would like the school funding spending share to be opaque, rather than transparent? Could it be that it is not so much a generous promise by the Secretary of State to open his coffers, but more an instruction to councils to extract more cash from council tax payers?
	We will find out soon enough, but we may be back to the old game of standard spending assessments and passporting, which have long since been rumbled and will continue to be so. That may be unkind; the Secretary of State impresses me as a man of natural generosity. [Interruption.] I will apply that comment to other Ministers as well; perhaps they have the same disposition. The Secretary of State is even prepared to make handouts from his own Department's money, and he referred in his statement to something called end-of-term flexibility, which most of us would call an underspend. Hon. Members would agree that £1.2 billion, or whatever the figure may be, is an awful lot of flexibility and that school bursars would genuinely like a bit of flexibility too.
	A key problem in the new settlement—I should like the Minister to listen to this specific point and to respond to it—is that local authority special education budgets will be constrained under the new regime. Local authorities will be constrained in the amount by which school budgets increase. Everyone accepts that special education budgets are demand-led—they are controlled by the rights of parents and those of the children themselves—and that individual cases can be extraordinarily expensive. The net effect of that artificial constraint can only be to open the door to worrying litigation involving individual cases, as councils try to constrain their budgets in line with an artificial limit and seek to keep down costs. I want to flag up that concern, and I should like the Minister to respond to it in summing up.
	Moving to the positive side, the Secretary of State and other Ministers will be reassured to discover that I am sending a copy of the reassuring statement issued on 17 July to every school in my constituency, and I hope that, in turn, it will be pinned up in staff rooms, so that staff and governors can study it in the dark days of November and February. It will act as a powerful reassurance for their doubts. If, perchance, all does not come to pass as they expect, they will know who has misled them.
	Teachers will not necessarily be reassured by the current tranche of statistics thrown down by the Government. They will not be reassured by people telling them that there are an extra 25,000 teachers because that figure includes trainees, instructors and people without qualified status. They will not be reassured by talk of 3,000 more graduates opting to teach because they read the papers and know that one in three people gives up the profession after about three years. They know for a fact, from their own experience, that there are acute shortages in some subjects and in some areas, such as the south-east. They know that, according to The Times Educational Supplement, 700 teachers were made redundant this year and that four times that number of jobs were not renewed. As has been said, the school work force statement issued today has given no comfort that things will get a great deal better. It has certainly given the teaching unions and schools no such comfort, and those figures, which show a decline, were documented before the current fiasco, so there may be worse figures to come.
	It is worth standing back and asking who—apart from parents, staff and the Government—is a significant casualty of this sad episode in educational history, where the Government got their sums wrong, as we all have to acknowledge. My local constituency research seems to show that there is another major and perhaps unspoken casualty—classroom assistants. Their terms and conditions of employment are less certain and it might be easier to let them go when financial circumstances get worse. Any sizable reduction in their numbers could have near fatal consequences on the work load agreement. There seem to be problems with the agreement anyway—perhaps expectations are pitched too high—but whatever its merits, it will not work if budgetary pressures lead to the shedding of support staff. That piece of information might be shown to be true later this year.
	Added to that, no Minister has given any guarantee that the money for the work load agreement will be ring-fenced. For all that I understand, it might well be muddled in with other expenditure. The money will be in the local authority grant and people will be asked to identify it. That might be a symptom of Treasury caution overriding the natural generous instincts of Education Ministers. I shall be glad if the Minister contradicts me on that point but I doubt that he will, and nor do I think that he will give me any guarantee that no child will be taught by unqualified staff next year—we have every expectation that many will.
	To sum up, there is clear substance in the Opposition's charge that the Government have imperilled what is, on the face of it, a decent initiative. It must be said that there is little evidence of the Conservatives wanting to provide additional substantial resources to improve matters. We must accept that the Government are guilty of blundering rather than callous deceit. They have found their exposed position uncomfortable and they do not welcome a re-run. They know for a fact that educationalists are not stupid and that they are hard to deceive. Their only option now—I commend it to them—is to take the path of complete honesty and transparency. They should not hide behind local authorities or obscure formulae but give schools the financial stability that they need to do the job that the Government and the country want done.

Adrian Bailey: Before I start my speech, may I apologise to the House? I am supposed to be at another meeting at the moment and I shall have to attend it when I conclude my remarks, although I shall be back as soon as I can afterwards. The great virtue of that is that it gives me the best incentive to keep my remarks as short as possible.
	I especially wanted to speak in the debate because I could not help but feel that Opposition comments in support of the motion demonstrated a collective amnesia about, or airbrushing from, the educational or local government history of funding for education. I felt moved to speak because I was chair of finance for Sandwell metropolitan borough council for five years. The council is a major unitary authority in the black country that is typical of many deprived urban metropolitan borough councils with specific educational problems. I could not help but remember the funding arrangements that existed during the years when the Conservative party was in government.
	I have researched a few statistics. Between 1992 and 1997, the collective cuts that Sandwell metropolitan borough council had to endure amounted to £42.9 million. I remember that because the local authority was so concerned about maintaining education in the borough that it tried to minimise the extent of the cuts that would apply to education. However, notwithstanding that specific policy, the fact that education represented 60 per cent. of its total budget meant that it could not make the cuts required to stay within its capping levels without affecting funding for education. Indeed, over that period there was an £18.3 million cut in education spending, an average of about £3 million a year.

Andrew Selous: If the hon. Gentleman is maintaining that the Government's difficulties are minor compared with what happened during the Conservative years, how does he account for the fact that Michael Clapham, who represents heads in east Yorkshire, said:
	"In the last 12 years, this is far and away the worst budget settlement that I have had to manage as a head teacher"?
	That includes the last six years of the Conservative Administration.

Adrian Bailey: I cannot comment on Michael Clapham's perspective, but I know that my local authority is not alone in its experience. Between 1992 and 1997, my local authority shared a common experience with nearly every major industrial metropolitan borough authority in the country. I am sure that any head teacher within those authorities would make the same comment and I think that more head teachers would share that view of the situation.
	The legacy of the funding policy that we inherited in 1997 was that although standards were rising in Sandwell, they were not rising fast enough. The local authority recognised that there was much more to do. We had a disproportionate number of schools with appalling physical accommodation, including a disproportionately high number of temporary mobile classrooms and a shortage of teachers. I am not whinging specifically on behalf of Sandwell; the experience was common to many local authorities. However, we recognised the challenges that faced us and we managed them.
	I contrast that with the situation five or six years on. The national figures given by the Minister demonstrate the huge increase in education funding, which is now a higher proportion of our gross domestic product than when the Tories came into office. I can say for sure that it is paying dividends. Sandwell is one of the authorities involved in the excellence in cities programme and I know that there have been measurable improvements in key areas of our educational performance. Just last year, Sandwell's maths results were up 4 per cent., its science results were up 3 per cent. and its information and communications technology were up 10 per cent., all of which were above national targets. There is no doubt that that is a direct result of the investment in local authorities such as Sandwell.
	Sandwell's A* to C GCSE results were up 2 per cent. Five of its secondary schools had their best ever results, two of them in my constituency. The results of Wood Green school, a specialist school benefiting from the range of funding available to such schools, are up 63 per cent., which is above its target of 50 per cent. In addition, virtually every school has improved its physical environment. There is investment in the infrastructure and that, too, is playing a part in improved standards throughout the borough.
	The funding arrangement that existed before the arrangements were revised this year discriminated against local authorities such as Sandwell. We recognise that changing them would cause difficulties, but in the interests of both equity and improving the performance of areas that hitherto had suffered from underfunding and underperformance, it was necessary. However, the procedures incorporated into the revised funding arrangements to ensure that all local authorities benefited from a real-terms increase in funding were a fail-safe measure that never existed for authorities such as Sandwell under the Tory Government.
	I believe that the Government's proposals for assisting with the budget arrangements of those local authorities that are having difficulties should, in future, play a considerable part in helping those authorities to sort out their short-term budget problems. I know from my local authority experience that the last-minute announcement of the funding mechanism causes schools enormous difficulties. The lack of flexibility in how they can use collective and individual balances, or the balance of capital and revenue expenditure, also causes difficulties.
	The £800 million available as back-stop funding for schools in difficulties will be an enormous help in certain circumstances. We recognise that with the huge range of school funding regimes and the differences in local authority expenditure, it is incredibly difficult to provide a funding arrangement that will effectively protect every single school in the country from difficulties. However, the mechanisms that the Government have proposed will provide flexibility and assistance that I do not remember receiving from the previous Conservative Government when I had to cope with such funding problems.
	The Government have handled a difficult situation with some sensitivity. We must recognise that this has been an exceptionally difficult year, with changes to teachers' pension and salary arrangements and a substantial drop in pupil numbers. A number of difficulties came to a head at once, but the Government have listened to local authorities, they have taken steps and they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Out of that will come a more effective, focused funding regime that will help the schools that most need it to raise standards where they most need to.

David Amess: "Education, education, education" and "tough on the causes of crime" are very slick phrases that Labour has used, but the situation now is that the British people simply do not trust a word that the Government say.
	I suspect that the Minister for School Standards has to go to another meeting, so I should perhaps first put on record my reason for speaking in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) suggested earlier, representatives from Southend education authority were to meet the Minister at 3.30 this afternoon. There can be no criticism whatever of the Minister for his having to postpone the meeting. My hon. Friends called for this debate today, and it is just one of those things. It is not for me to speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, but I suspect that he was disappointed because, much earlier, he had specifically asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State.
	That being said, I say to the Minister for School Standards that I hope that nothing in my speech will sour the tone of our meeting, which I believe has been rescheduled for November. I am very anxious to work with the Government to get the best possible settlement for children in Southend.

Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we have waited a while for a meeting, and it is now the beginning of September, we should have that meeting as soon as possible, not in November?

David Amess: I know that the Minister will be abroad for a while on parliamentary duties. Many of the representatives coming from Southend are teachers and head teachers. It has been somewhat difficult to pull the dates together. I suspect that that is why—I say this gently to my hon. Friend—the meeting will be in November. Who knows, perhaps we might even be—

James Purnell: In an effort to ingratiate himself with the Government Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman might start by talking about the fantastic examination results that we have just had, where they have come from and whether the extra funding that we provided has made any difference to the results.

David Amess: That is certainly on the list. I shall be joining the Minister in his congratulations to local children in Southend.
	Given the amendment to the motion of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the pattern of the debate is already established. The Opposition, as is our job, are holding the Government to account. The Government and their partners in crime, the Liberal Democrats, want to talk about what happened during the last Conservative Government. They do not want to consider what has been happening in the more recent past, and we are moving on to seven years of Labour government. They can try that, but it will not wash with the general public, who are interested only in what the present Government are doing. In terms of education, they will regret that since 1997 the Government have centralised everything. If I were to be asked to analyse where the money is going, I would say that too much is going on centralisation.
	I suppose that the violins will come out now, but teaching used always to be seen as a vocation. Teacher retention was highlighted in a recent survey by the General Teaching Council, which found that across the nation a third of England's teachers are expected to leave teaching within five years. Among the main reasons cited by teachers for their wish to leave the profession are badly behaved pupils, an excessive work load, initiative overload and a target-driven culture. Thirty-four per cent. of teachers expect to leave the profession within the next five years. That says it all. Teachers no longer see their profession as a vocation.
	I know that Labour will say, "Look at all the wonderful IT units that Members are being asked to open every week. Look at all the marvellous sports facilities. Trevor Brooking is opening a new sports facility next week at Belfairs school." However, the survey shows that teachers have never left the profession because they felt that they were teaching in a dump. It was never like that. I do not believe that teachers were leaving the profession because of physical circumstances. The situation is much more serious than that. I hold the Government to account because I believe that there has been centralisation.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is interesting to note that the survey does not show that teachers are mentioning pay? Is that not a reflection on the fact that the Government have invested in pay, and that that factor is not in the list?

David Amess: It does not appear to be in the list in the survey, but it is on every other list.
	I gently refer to the Annunciator screen, which shows that I am not speaking. It shows that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) is still on his feet. I do not know how that is taken into account in terms of time.
	I wish to respond to the intervention about examination results. Four of my five children are still at school. I rejoice with the Minister for School Standards that my oldest daughter got an A and two Bs and will be reading English and drama at Queen Mary college. It is a splendid university which rejected her father more than 30 years ago. I am delighted that St. Bernard's school did not only produce Helen Mirren; it was responsible for providing my daughter with a splendid education. My youngest daughter is about to start there. My other daughters are at Southend high school for girls and at Westcliff high school for girls. I never forget that it was the Labour party, supported by its partner in crime, the Liberal party, which did everything it could to undermine grammar school education. Opposition Members like to send their children to grammar schools, but we found in Southend that we had to fight Labour to retain our four grammar schools.
	The House may also be interested in another piece of information. My research assistant comes from a staunch Liverpudlian family. His parents wanted the best for his son, so they sent him to a private school. He is a staunch Conservative because he wants to thank the last Conservative Government. When his father lost his job, the assisted scheme enabled him to stay and enjoy private education.

Jonathan R Shaw: Would the hon. Gentleman assist the House and tell us what a staunch Liverpudlian is?

David Amess: Someone who is still proud of Liverpool—I see that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) is in the Chamber, so I must be careful—and speaks with a strong Liverpudlian accent.
	As for Southend, I am advised by our education department that we have nine primary vacancies, 19 secondary school vacancies for teachers and two vacancies in our special schools. The Minister for School Standards has probably had a chance to glance over the agenda for a meeting that we were going to have. We would have discussed the effects of Southend's low formula spending share settlement on schools' budgets in Southend and the passporting of £700,000 over and above the required sum. The second issue that we were going to explore was the marked effect of cuts on our high-achieving schools in Southend—sadly, Southend high school for boys has had to remove Latin from the curriculum for the first time in its history. We would have discussed those who have followed the Government's instructions in schools serving areas of considerable disadvantage, and the narrowing of the attainment gap. The Government have said that poverty is not an excuse for low achievement, but some of our schools are having to dismantle the staffing structure that has brought about excellent achievements. When the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box on the day before we rose for the summer recess, more money was pledged for next year but, of course, the damage had already been done.
	The final matter that we wanted to explore with the Minister for School Standards was the borrowing that some schools have had to make from the local authority to get through this year. Next year's settlement will be low, and those schools simply cannot sustain that deficit.
	I wanted to share with the House three comments by head teachers of schools in Southend. None of their letters was politically motivated—they were simply written when the ramifications of our financial settlement began to bite. I shall not name the first head, who said:
	"I am not one of those headteachers who constantly complains about a shortfall in their budget. However, the proportion of my budget that has been attributed to staffing costs has risen from 82 per cent. last year to 90 per cent. this year. Obviously this makes all other aspects of school management difficult, although I have managed to set a balanced budget. This budget does not, however, allow for the extra staff and other resources that I would wish in order to achieve an improvement in school results."
	National insurance contributions were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and the head teacher says that NICs, together with an increase in teacher pension contributions, are
	"having a huge effect on a largely people-based environment."
	That says it all. It does not matter what the schools are like—if there are no good-quality teachers, schools will struggle to provide the sort of education what we want.
	The head teacher went on to say:
	"The consolidation of teacher salary grades from point 9 down to 6 is also biting hard this year as more staff become eligible to apply for the upper pay threshold."
	Finally, she said:
	"By good housekeeping I am fortunate to have a carry forward figure that allows for some maintenance and refurbishment to take place, but I cannot do this from the . . . financial government income."
	I will name Mr. Frank Keenan, headmaster of St. Thomas More high school for boys, who would have been at the meeting with the Minister and represents secondary heads in Southend. He says:
	"several schools in Southend are forced to declare deficit budgets in this current year (including my own), and we are having to meet L.E.A. officers to draw up four-year recovery plans. In my school, we are in the absurd position of having a £3 million new extension project due to open in September, but we will not have the money to clean it or maintain it!"
	That is an absurd situation.
	The third and final letter comes from a head teacher at the largest primary school in Essex, which has the biggest education authority, although Southend is unitary. She says:
	"Our school is very successful but also very vulnerable. Our current budget deficit of £170,000 will place our school at risk. Our success depends on good will. Redundancies and the threat of redundancies undermines the good will that keeps our school open to children and their families from 7.30 am to late at night . . . We have been told to come to terms with running a 'less successful school'. That can never be right especially in the current context with its emphasis on equal opportunities for all young people . . . We have made cuts. We are not replacing teaching staff and support staff who are leaving (value of £70,000)."
	I hope that when we meet, the Minister will have had an opportunity to reflect on the points that I have made.
	One of our local newspapers, the Southend Evening Echo, cribbed a recent story in The Sun calling for private tutors to be subject to the same legislation as state school teachers. I shall not name the gentleman in question, but it has come to light locally that a private tutor—I am thinking here of morale in teaching generally—is still teaching despite having been caught with indecent images of children on his home computer. He was not charged, but received a police caution and was placed on the sex offenders register for five years. Teachers are drawing to my attention the fact that, as the law stands, a person who is placed on the sex offenders register is barred from teaching in a state school, but not prevented from giving private tuition. Will the Minister reflect on that issue and perhaps write to me, so that we can at least have some guidance locally?
	I come to the end of my speech feeling confused about how long it has lasted, as there seems to be a problem with the monitor. This year's funding crisis in the education system has led to what one head teacher calls
	"far and away the worst situation I have ever had to manage."
	The over-centralisation of education has created a situation of huge complication, and no one understands the way in which the system works. Despite showering the education system with money, the reality is that teachers and parents are all suffering the effects of the Government's regime of command and control.
	I think that the Government, in their seventh year in office, have lost for ever the trust that they had. They have broken their promise that extra money would get to the schools where it would make a real difference to standards. That is what has happened in Southend. Parents and teachers have a right to be cross about the crisis in our schools. Thousands of children face the new school year with fewer teachers and support staff than ever before. For the Government to accuse local councils, schools and the School Teachers Review Body of being responsible for the funding difficulties is an absolutely shameless piece of buck-passing.
	At the 1997 general election, we can all recall seeing in the wee hours of the morning all the Labour supporters gathered together, at a time when they thought that it was trendy to be associated with celebrities, to the sound of the D:Reem song, "Things Can Only Get Better". I do hope that they still have a copy, because the incoming Conservative Government will play it with relish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should tell the House that I am aware that the Annunciator is not working properly. This is the second day running that it has happened; I think that computers may have gone down. However, there are clocks under the Galleries that hon. Members can see—and, of course, the Chair keeps a very close watch on exactly how long they take in making their speeches.

Jonathan R Shaw: Despite Southend's disappointment, I can assure the House that the Minister is making himself available to meet delegations from schools—I was pleased to accompany one from Medway earlier today. In my area, we have a standstill budget and there has been one redundancy. We welcome the additional £1.3 million of extra funding following our initial budget settlement, but the council had to go into its reserves, and for a small authority £3 million is not a sustainable sum. We have concerns about next year, but look forward to being given the details later in this Session.
	The Select Committee on Education and Skills will certainly work rigorously on behalf of the House of Commons to ensure that the Secretary of State provides clarity and delivers on what he has told us about better settlements for schools. If hon. Members have any doubt about that, I point out that although it is a Labour-dominated Committee, the last time the Secretary of State came before it I was described on "Yesterday in Parliament" as the Tory MP for Chatham and Aylesford.
	It is important to recognise what is happening today in the teaching profession. Ofsted reports that we have the best teaching work force that we have ever had; we need to say that a little more often. I have an interest, because yesterday my daughter had her first day at St. Katherine's school in Snodland in my constituency—an excellent school, led by an excellent head, with many new resources that are evident to parents and teachers alike. We should applaud the work that teachers do, which is delivered through students' examination results. Every year, we hear the same denigration of exam results. What does that say to students, parents and teachers? What does it do for their morale? If more students pass, the complainers say that exams are too easy; if fewer pass, they say that schools are failing. De facto, what they want is for results to remain the same for ever. Well, that is not going to happen, is it? It is reported that by 2010 some 180,000 to 250,000 extra students will be presenting themselves for university places. That is something to celebrate, but it also creates a demand for funding.
	As well as acknowledging the work force, we must work out how to continue to recruit. The age profile of teachers is worrying. Within the next 15 years, 45 per cent. of teachers will be in their 60th year. That is a serious matter. The Teacher Training Agency reckons that it must recruit between 30,000 and 35,000 teachers a year. Complaints by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen about the agency's advertisements therefore miss the point. We need more people to come into our schools and take advantage of the additional resources that the Government have provided, not least the £6,000 that is made available to students who take the courses.
	I have spoken to several friends who are either on or have recently completed their teacher training. It is a very demanding course, which is reflected in Ofsted's claim that we have a skilled and able work force. However, we should consider some of the detail about our teacher work force. For example, we must examine the need to promote more ethnic minority teachers. There are currently 9,100 teachers from ethnic minorities in our schools. That is approximately 2.4 per cent. of the work force.
	When the Select Committee visited Birmingham, concern about underperformance, especially of Afro-Caribbean boys, and the woeful lack of role models in schools was apparent. We met some role models, but they were few and far between. I am sure that all hon. Members would like there to be more. It is obvious that if we are to promote standards in all the different communities in our society, we need role models in front of the class. The Teacher Training Agency advises us that the position is improving and I know that Ministers take the matter seriously. All hon. Members should take any opportunity to encourage those from ethnic minority backgrounds to go into teaching.

Andrew Selous: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's points. Indeed, I am proud to sponsor a reception by "Black Boys Can" later in the Session. He mentioned "promoting" more ethnic minority teachers; I wonder whether he meant "recruiting" many more, with which we would all agree, rather than promoting on merit, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Jonathan R Shaw: I meant promoting the exciting opportunities in teaching to ethnic minority members of our community.

David Rendel: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that a further group—male teachers in primary schools—is sadly lacking?

Jonathan R Shaw: That is right. At the primary school of which I am a governor, we are fortunate in having two mature male teachers and one younger male teacher. That makes a genuine difference. The school is in a deprived socio-economic area and many pupils do not have a positive male role model outside school. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right and we have discussed the matter with the Teacher Training Agency. Again, we must consider not only teachers per se but detailed matters such as ways in which to get, for example, black teachers and male teachers into specific schools.
	We should also do more to encourage mature students, who have had careers elsewhere. Increasing numbers are coming into schools, and the Open university advised the Committee that mature students progressed far more rapidly into senior management grades than younger students. They bring in their experience from outside. We should applaud the Government for the fact that the £6,000 is available, making it possible for many people to consider changing career and going into the teaching profession.
	It is important to keep people in the profession. The Committee also heard about the wide range of initiatives being undertaken by local authorities, in terms of providing opportunities for teachers to leave their schools for a period and to take up certain initiatives, so that their careers can become more varied. People are increasingly looking for that, and those initiatives, which play a vital role in the infrastructure of our teacher workforce, are to be applauded.
	The Conservative party is casting doubt on the future of local education authorities. New Zealand got rid of all its LEAs, but the Government there have now had to create their own authorities throughout the country. An infrastructure is required, when schools are struggling, to work out who is going to run the special needs provision, meet the transport requirements, and so on. Most schools cannot operate in isolation. I am sure that successful schools, which cater for the higher socio-economic groups in society, can do so, but schools in inner cities with particular needs need special support.
	In Birmingham, the Committee noted the work of an education authority that was applauded by teachers and parents. That does not often happen. There are not always tangible outcomes that we can point to, to show that local education authorities have made a difference in terms of examination results. We know, however, that support—providing training, running effective services, and so on—is vital, and that support can be provided far more economically by an overarching body such as a local education authority.
	Another important job that the Teacher Training Agency is doing is recruiting returners. There are thousands of people out there who have taught, and who have perhaps not considered returning to the classroom. "Golden comebacks" are now available—I think that they are worth between £2,000 and £3,000, but if I have got that wrong, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will advise me. Those are available across the board, but there is a question as to whether that should be the case. We heard from the employers—the Local Government Association—that the situation is not the same everywhere. In parts of the country, there are no recruitment difficulties whatever. Should a school with a full staff complement in an area that does not have a recruitment problem be eligible for that money? I am not sure that it should, when there are dire problems in our inner cities. It is better to use the money where the resources are needed the most. The Government should seriously consider better targeting the "golden comebacks".
	On passporting money into schools, of course local education authorities should pass on money to schools, but they cannot pass it all on. It is easy for Members to criticise one another here today, but the fact is that the Government have increased the percentage share that goes into the delegated budgets. But we, as Members of Parliament, write to our directors of education when people come into our advice surgeries with concerns about the special educational needs provision for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism, for example, or about transport matters. If every penny is passed to the schools, where will the money come from to deal with the issues about which we make representations to the local education authorities? We all do it. We should reflect for a moment before saying that not all the money is being delivered to schools. We should bear in mind psychology and transport needs, for instance.
	Given the Tories' record, when I consider the criticisms they make of the Government words fail me. I have been a governor of Kent schools for many years. Every October we would receive a note from the education authority telling us to start thinking about cuts. Head teachers say, understandably, that this is their worst year ever, but in fact it is their worst year ever under a Labour Government.
	I believe that the Government are committed to improvement. There are so many examples of extra investment in all our constituencies. For instance, the school of which I am a governor had a nursery built under the last Labour Government's urban aid programme. There are only a handful of purpose-built nurseries in Kent, which has one of the largest education authorities in the country, because the authority consistently failed to spend to the level of its standard spending assessment. This school had to wait for an incoming Labour Government to enable its nursery to be refurbished under the new deal for schools against which both Opposition parties voted. That is the difference between the two sides.

Andrew Selous: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was paying attention when I intervened earlier, so I shall repeat what I quoted then. He said that the current difficulties were the worst that had been experienced under a Labour Government. What would he say to the head of an East Yorkshire school, Michael Clapham, who represents a group of East Yorkshire heads? According to him,
	"In the last 12 years, this is far and away the worst budget settlement that I have had to manage as a head teacher".
	That includes six years under the last Conservative Government.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman need only look at the record and see how much has been spent on education. I cannot account for how much the Yorkshire authority passed to that particular school, and we see variations throughout the country; but the hon. Gentleman will know that, notwithstanding all the computer suites, new classrooms and additional learning support assistance provided in Bedfordshire, the same is happening in Kent and elsewhere.
	I think the Government have acknowledged that this has been a particularly difficult year. The Conservative Government did not acknowledge that in any year; all that they did was cut and cut. It will take a long time for this Government to deal with the backlog that has resulted from the Conservatives' failure to invest, but I know that—as with the nursery in my constituency—they are committed to doing so.

Andrew Selous: Like others, I begin by congratulating pupils in schools in my constituency on their excellent work over the past year. Their results have been excellent. I also pay tribute to work in Bedfordshire's lower schools. Pupils at that stage do not take exams, but Studham lower school, of which I am a governor, was visited by the strategic director of education for Bedfordshire because it had done so well over the year. I congratulate the children, and also the excellent teachers and other staff who brought about such a high standard.
	In the context of exams, though, I think there is a need for an independent Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, given the A-level fiasco of recent years and the beginning of a lack of trust in our examination system among the public. That lack of trust is a great pity, and it devalues the hard work and excellent results that we have rightly celebrated today.

Adrian Bailey: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a fiasco and of undermining trust, but the Select Committee looked at this issue and in fact, very few A-levels were misgraded. When we looked at the picture closely, it was nothing like a fiasco.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman's Government made an excellent decision in making the Bank of England independent—it had not been done before and it proved successful—and with that in mind I would encourage him to be a little more far-sighted here. I can see absolutely no downside to making the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority independent; indeed, doing so would provide considerable strengths. It would offer a general reassurance to parents, pupils and teachers throughout the country that there was absolutely no interference whatsoever from Ministers of any Government.
	It is no good looking at historical perspectives during this debate, for one very simple reason. We are talking about children's life chances as they go through school today, not the care and maintenance of some wonderful historic building. This is not a question of saving a little on exterior renovation this year because times are hard, and saying that we will come back to it in five or ten years' time. We know that children have one chance. They experience some critical times in their education as they go through lower school and enter middle school, so they must have the right environment. That is why the Opposition were right to call for this debate today, and to hold the Government to account for what has gone so very badly wrong this year. We do so in the hope that there will be no repetition in future years of what has happened this year, for the sake of all our children.
	I shall return to a point that I have made twice already during this debate, because Labour Members seem to be experiencing some amnesia about what happened in previous years. They seem to think that everything was always terrible during the Conservative years, but many people have reinforced the comment by Michael Clapham, who represents heads in East Yorkshire, that this is the worst budget that he has had to deal with for 12 years. [Interruption.] I make that point a third time so that perhaps it might be heard. In my constituency, experienced governors of long standing who are incredibly committed to education have told me the same thing. Indeed, one governor actually put his own house on the line to protect his school's budget.

James Purnell: rose—

Andrew Selous: I give way to my former Select Committee colleague.

James Purnell: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made the same point three times now, but does he recognise that in 1997, funding in education as a proportion of gross domestic product was more than 20 per cent. lower than the current level? Does he think that results in his constituency would be better or worse if funding were cut by 20 per cent., which I believe is his party's intention?

Andrew Selous: That is something of a cheap shot, I am afraid. I stood on a manifesto pledge of increased education spending, to which I am personally committed. The hon. Gentleman can trade statistics, but I have told him what heads are saying about their current funding difficulties. We are talking about children in education today turning up at their schools at the start of this term and finding that there is a shortage of teachers.

James Purnell: rose—

Andrew Selous: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and if he does not mind, I shall make a little progress and develop my remarks.

Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Selous: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Roy Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. Will he accept that this is also the first year ever that there has been universal discontent among head teachers in Northern Ireland? Their discontent is such that they actually sent a delegation here to make representations to all parties, because of their concern at the shortfall in funding available to be spent for the benefit of pupils in Northern Ireland schools.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing the perspective from his part of the United Kingdom; indeed, he reinforces the point that I was making.
	A look at the figures reveals the national picture. A survey undertaken by the Secondary Heads Association, in conjunction with The Times Educational Supplement, shows a reduction nationally of some 3,400 posts in English comprehensives. Of those, 730 were made redundant and a further 2,789 teachers and 1,152 support staff were simply not replaced. Furthermore, 75 per cent. of the lost posts were in schools where the roll had either remained static or had risen—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), a former Secretary of State for Education.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is correct to identify concern about schools where teaching posts have been lost and teachers made redundant, but will he respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards earlier—that the figure for schools that have taken on extra teaching staff exceeded the loss figure that the hon. Gentleman just quoted? The net figure is in fact an increase in the number of teaching staff in those schools.

Andrew Selous: I am not sure that I entirely understand the Minister's point. He is looking at the national picture, but I have quoted figures from the national picture that do not seem to back up what he said. I agree with the Minister for School Standards that more people are coming into the teaching profession. That is excellent, but nationally we are talking about a loss.
	I should like to talk specifically about my own constituency, which I obviously know well. On 8 July I asked my local education authority about the number of teachers either made redundant or not replaced in the constituency. The list I received from the local authority showed the following. Cedars upper school in Leighton Buzzard lost five teachers and one administrative officer was not replaced. St. George's lower school, also in Leighton Buzzard, lost two teachers. At Priory middle school in Dunstable, four learning support assistants were not present this September. Greenleas lower school, also at Leighton Buzzard, lost one teacher and one non-teaching member of staff and Dunstable Icknield lower school lost one teacher. The Thomas Whitehead lower school in Houghton Regis lost the equivalent of half a nursery nurse.
	I know from correspondence with many other schools in my constituency that those figures do not supply the complete picture. I can think of a lower school in Dunstable whose deputy head teacher has not been replaced this September, and the school managed its deficit only by its head taking on an extremely heavy teaching commitment. That worries me because when a head has such a commitment, along with all the extra work in running the school, it amounts to an intolerable burden.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how the schools in his constituency are tackling the problem of falling rolls? Are the losses, either in the shorter or longer term, associated with falling rolls in any of the schools that he mentioned?

Andrew Selous: No, Bedfordshire is an area of great population growth. Currently the population of our towns and country areas is growing, though none of the schools that I mentioned is in a rural area. It is not an area of population decline. That may be the hon. Lady's experience, but it does not apply to Bedfordshire.
	The spectacle that we witnessed earlier this year—of the Government trying to blame everyone other than themselves—was not attractive. Local education authorities were first singled out for blame, but when the figures were examined, it was found that few had behaved improperly. My own authority of Bedfordshire was proved to have passed on all the money that it should have done—and, indeed, more.
	I am extremely concerned about the governors and head teachers who have to set school budgets at the start of every year. In common with many other hon. Members, I would like to see an increase in the core mainstream funding of schools from around the present 70 per cent. to a much higher figure of perhaps 80, 85 or even 90 per cent; and a reduction in the 30 per cent. that schools have either to bid for or are allocated later in the year. There a number of very good reasons why we should do that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Motions in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eight o'clock.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

Andrew Selous: It is incredibly difficult to set a school budget if one is not clear about exactly what moneys will be allocated at the start of the year. The person who sets a school budget will probably be the chair of the finance committee. That person will be a school governor with a full-time job and a family, who probably undertakes other activities in the community as well. It is extremely difficult for such people to plan properly in respect of staff and major capital programmes if they are not sure what money they will get during the year.
	I take the point made earlier by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that some money does have to be retained at the centre, for special needs. He gave the interesting example of New Zealand, where they got rid of LEAs and then had to reinstate them. If that fact was unearthed by the Select Committee, it shows the value of those Committees looking at what is happening around the world. I therefore do not advocate the abolition of LEAs, but I believe that the balance between direct funding to schools and the money retained by either central Government or the LEA is wrong. I should like to increase the 70 per cent. figure by a large amount.
	Mention has been made in the debate of new teachers coming into the profession. I acknowledge that the figures are healthy, and show that more people are going into teacher training college than was the case last year. I suspect that that is partly the result of the golden hellos that have been introduced, which will go some way towards paying off student loans. That is all well and good, and the measure was a sensible one for the Government to take.
	However, I am very worried about retention in the teaching profession. It is a real issue. All hon. Members know that, in any great public profession—such as teaching, medicine or the police—there are huge advantages to be gained from continuity and experience. Teachers who have been in the profession for many years will have coped with many difficult situations, and they therefore bring great wisdom and depth of experience to the job. It is extremely worrying that so many teachers leave the profession after only three or four years.
	I was very interested in the research mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) into the reasons why teachers are leaving the profession. About six months ago, I went into an upper school in my constituency as part of a citizenship education programme. The day's activity went extremely well, but I found myself in sole charge of a class. I do not think that it was supposed to happen: the children were about 15 or 16 years of age and quite lively. The class was fairly large, and I found getting the children's attention and saying what I wanted to say quite exhausting. The exercise had to do with setting a local authority budget, and I wanted to look at the children's priorities for the community. That was not something that they had considered before, but I hasten to say that it was the school's idea, not mine. It was a very good exercise, and I was trying to get them to think about the different needs of the community.

Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the exercise would have been considerably more difficult if it had been held eight years ago?

Andrew Selous: I might say that that makes it 15-all, but the intervention was not relevant to my point.
	I found it personally draining to have to keep the pupils' attention, to keep order and to stop conversations going on at the back of the class as I got pupils to focus on what we were trying to do. I did that three or four times in a couple of different classes one morning. As I left, I said that that was indeed fairly draining work which gave me a good insight into the problems that teachers have day in and day out. I understand from the survey undertaken by the General Teaching Council in January that the main reasons why teachers leave the profession are badly behaved pupils and the constant struggle of having to keep discipline when they want to impart knowledge and teach their subjects. How much that saps morale is difficult to know for anyone who has not done it.
	That is why I will see the Secretary of State at 11 am tomorrow to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour and parenting in relation to schools. I am going with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) who shares my concerns. It is no surprise that we are joining together to do that—Members on both sides of the House are concerned. It is time that we came together across the country to agree that the situation is intolerable. The problem was highlighted recently by the chief inspector of schools, David Bell, for whom I have great respect, and whom I know reasonably well because he is a former chief executive of Bedfordshire county council and I have travelled to London with him by train from time to time. He made some interesting comments two or three weeks ago about the extreme difficulties that primary and lower schools have when children arrive lacking any sort of the social skills that would have been taken for granted 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his comments about the chief inspector endorse the work of the sure start programme in the most deprived areas? He has said time and again that he welcomes extra money for teacher recruitment and various initiatives, but when it comes down to it, he votes against that money.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman keeps resorting to relatively cheap attacks. I was trying to engage in discussion about a matter that I think is of important cross-party interest. There is a national problem, whether we are Labour, Liberal, Conservative or anything else. That is why I am joining a Labour Member tomorrow in seeing the Secretary of State.
	We can argue about the mechanisms by which we deal with the problem. Sure start will have its advocates but since that initiative does not apply to my area—even though we have extreme pockets of deprivation—I cannot speak of it from first-hand experience. I can say that the work done by home start, which is to be expanded and of which there are examples in my constituency, is excellent. I myself would try to empower parents more, perhaps helping those who have not had the benefit of being well parented themselves to improve the way in which they parent their own children. There are different ways to approach the problem, but I am convinced that we must recognise that there is a national problem. We cannot expect teachers in lower and primary schools to do that work as well as teaching children. We need a national agreement, and the challenge for the Government and the country is to do something about the social skills of young children in the same way that we have tried to make improvements in other areas.
	I agree that more male teachers in primary and lower schools are needed. In all the lower schools that I have visited in my constituency over the past few years, I have seen probably only one or two male teachers. The presence of such teachers is important, particularly for those children who do not have a father at home or a male role model in the household. We all know of wonderful examples of male teachers in lower and primary schools who are excellent role models to whom children relate well, which is important for their development. We need to take that seriously.

James Purnell: What is this debate really about? It is really about spreading cynicism about education in this country. The Opposition cannot stand the facts that education results are improving and extra money is going into our schools—and they cannot promise to match it, so they are trying to erect a smokescreen and distract people's attention from the real improvements on the ground.
	Teacher shortages are an issue. Some schools have experienced quite severe problems, which was acknowledged by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. However, may I draw people's memory back to the days when the Conservatives adjusted the education funding formula? There were no floors and ceilings and local authorities had to make cuts of millions of pounds overnight.

Andrew Selous: No one in the Opposition believes that the Government set out to bring about the loss of hundreds, or probably thousands, of teacher and learning support assistant places. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the means whereby the Government have chosen to fund education mean that they have given with one hand and taken away from school budgets with the other? It is sheer incompetence and a failure to understand both education funding and the effects of increases for pensions and national insurance that have brought us to the current problem.

James Purnell: I do not accept that at all. As the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), has just explained to the hon. Gentleman, the overall number of teachers has risen. There is a big change in the funding formula, with associated transition costs, but my point to Opposition Members is that a severe contrast is offered by the days when millions of pounds were cut from local authorities such as mine to gerrymander the funding formula to allow Wandsworth and Westminster to set extremely low taxes. We all remember exactly why that was done.
	The change was justified. When I was selected for Stalybridge and Hyde, in every school that I visited, I was asked to make my first priority a change in the funding formula. The borough was one of the most deprived in the country, yet it received thousands of pounds less than neighbouring authorities because the funding formula at the time reflected only ethnic diversity and geographic scarcity. The Labour Government have changed the formula so that it properly reflects deprivation.
	At last, having suffered for between 10 and 15 years due to the gerrymandered funding formula, we are receiving an amount of money that properly reflects the deprivation in our schools. Despite the degree of deprivation in my area, we achieve excellent results. That is what I want to highlight. In contrast to the Opposition's attempt to spread cynicism, we should be optimistic about the results in our schools.
	Why do the Opposition want to spread cynicism? They have to convince people that the state cannot achieve what we are setting out to achieve. They have to convince people that things are hopeless, that people might as well not invest in public services and that, if they can afford it, they should use their money to send their children to private school, or perhaps their children will get into a selective school.
	We are saying that the state can work; we can invest in public services and it will make a real difference. The Tories try to distract people from that, but the evidence is clear—from looking at local papers or from people talking to their neighbours. That may be why the opinion poll results covered by The Times earlier this week were much less bad than people may have expected.
	We must continue to listen to people and deal with their concerns, but perhaps rather than looking at the flim-flam inside the beltway around Westminster—the media hype—people are actually looking at their schools and hospitals and thinking that, yes, they are starting to get better.
	In contrast to the Opposition's cynicism, I want to draw the House's attention to a few results in my area this summer.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Purnell: No, I have limited time and the hon. Gentleman was not in the debate, so I shall try to bring my—

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Purnell: I have already—

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) is not giving way.

James Purnell: rose—

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He accused—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

James Purnell: I have already referred to the incredible results for higher technology where there was an improvement from 50 to 63 per cent. That includes 71 per cent. gaining five A to C grades among the Bangladeshi community, which is nearly three times the achievement nationally. That is a great credit to Denise Spence and her colleagues, and I hope that the House will join me in congratulating that school on its results. All Saints Catholic college, which has just applied for specialist status, has improved its results from 43 to 45 per cent. of pupils achieving five A to C grades.
	The results at Dukinfield Astley—another school that the Minister for School Standards has visited—have increased from 26 per cent. last year to 43 per cent.—an improvement of nearly 20 percentage points in a year. West Hill has just reached an agreement with a local company, Atofina, to invest thousands of pounds in the new school and its specialist status. West Hill's result—62 per cent.—is up on last year, and I hope that the House will also join me in congratulating that school on its results. Longdendale, which achieved specialist language status last year and an outstanding result this year—44 per cent.—in what is, in some cases, a very deprived catchment area. Mossley Hollins's result was 24 per cent. last year, but it has gone up to 41 per cent., so I congratulate Drew Duncan and his team on achieving those results.
	New school buildings have been built at Alder secondary school, under Bob Wakefield, and there are new primary schools at Pinfold and Arundale on an estate where not one new school building was built during the entire time that the Conservatives were in power. I visited the old buildings several times. Frankly, it was a disgrace that people were being taught in prefabs in the school grounds and squeezed into corridors and other spaces because the classrooms were not in a proper state to be used for teaching. The library was even closed down.
	When the Opposition talk about school funding, they should ask themselves whether they could pledge to match our education results. They say that they will match our spending on defence and international development, but they also say that they want to make savings. They cannot say that they will match our education results. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) says that he stood on a platform of increasing education spending, but he has had to vote several times against spending increases. If the Opposition ever did get into government, they would have to make cuts.

Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Purnell: No. I am afraid that I have limited time.
	Copley school is proud of being a comprehensive—it is far from being a bog standard one—and it has managed to improve its results from 41 to 57 per cent. this year. That concludes the roundtrip of the secondary schools in my constituency.
	Finally, I congratulate the staff of those schools, as well as their pupils and governors and not least the local education authority, which has played a crucial role in improving schools in my area. Overall, our results went from 42 to 47 per cent. last year. That fantastic achievement is a testament to the effect of spending more money in schools, while having proper challenge and support from the LEA and central Government. I congratulate them, and I hope that the House will do so as well.

Andrew Turner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I do not intend to reiterate the arguments that have been developed so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and my other right hon. and hon. Friends today. I want to consider some of the other issues that may have given rise to the problem—I will not call it a crisis—of teacher recruitment and retention, and I wish to try to distinguish between the two because all too frequently they are combined and they need to be taken apart, although the phrase, "teacher shortage" may represent convenient shorthand.
	The first symptom of the problem is that many schools have an unbalanced age profile of teachers. In schools such as those in London, there are far too many young and inexperienced teachers, many of whom come from overseas. They need a great deal of support. In other schools, there is perhaps a disproportionate number of more senior teachers. I speak of the schools in my constituency. Such a disproportion is greatly to their advantage in some ways because those teachers bring experience and maturity, but they do not necessarily bring novelty and vigour of the kind that might be expected of younger teachers.
	There are problems with turnover. Some schools suffer turbulence—too much turnover—while others suffer stagnation because too few teachers are sufficiently ambitious to want to move on and some might be perceived to be coasting toward retirement. Both situations are unhealthy for teachers, schools and pupils and, I dare say, the future of pupils. It is difficult to get the right balance between recruitment and retention and we cannot always blame the Government or the Opposition for failing to achieve it. The problem is not necessarily related to funding.
	My colleagues have made the case on funding but I shall point out other symptoms: the shortage of subject specialism and the movement of teachers to the private sector, which was recognised by the Teacher Training Agency's survey. I shall examine several causes of those symptoms that have nothing to do with money. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on pointing out one during the closing minutes of his speech. The great difficulty associated with teaching pupils with few or inadequately developed social skills should be recognised. We need to tackle the problem at the root. Although I recognise that home start and sure start are part of the Government's prescription for tackling the problem, they are not tackling it at the root by asking why such children were so badly parented. I fear that one reason is the breakdown of families. I know that it is unfashionable to talk about the damage caused by the breakdown of families but it is time that we recognised the dramatic problems that serial parenting causes to the self-image of pupils and youngsters.
	The second great problem for teachers is lack of support from parents, which is associated with a sort of rights culture. The party of which I am proud to be a member has promoted the rights culture in education. It has promoted choice and what are considered to be market mechanisms but it has not necessarily always been successful at promoting a responsibilities culture to accompany the rights culture, although I accept that it is more difficult to do that. A rights culture without a responsibilities culture means that parents sometimes do not accept that their child can do wrong or that a teacher has not only the right but the duty to discipline a child or put him back on the right track if he goes wrong. If one fails to provide teachers with support and effective sanctions, they will fail to maintain discipline, which is one of the key factors that is causing teachers to leave the public sector and, in many cases, teaching altogether.
	A third element of the problem is the inadequately supported integration of pupils who sometimes have profound special educational needs. The Government are capping the money that local education authorities may hold back. I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that that will not lead to artificial capping of the amount spent on special educational needs because support for pupils with SEN represents support for every child and teacher in the schools that such pupils attend. There is too much inappropriate treatment of such pupils, and there are sometimes inappropriate attempts to integrate them when they, their parents and their teachers do not think that that can work. So that is a third problem that has nothing to do with money.
	The fourth problem that has nothing to do with money is bureaucracy, work load and initiative overload, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The Government recognise those problems, but they have not been sufficiently effective at reducing teacher work load, although I know that the work load agreement is designed to have that effect and if it is right for teachers, heads and governors, it will be implemented.
	The last problem is that of the allegations, sometimes unfounded, against people in the teaching profession. I refer to that principally because of a situation that arose in my constituency in the past few weeks, but the issue is of general concern. I know that teacher unions in particular are gravely concerned about the consequence for teachers of losing their professional, if not their literal, lives as a result of allegations that might not stand up in a court of law. I hope that the Government will examine that problem with the greatest possible care to discover whether there is a way to ensure that teachers get through that heart-rending time in their lives without necessarily losing their professional standing. It may be that after conviction it is right that they lose their professional standing, but currently, they lose it the moment that they are accused and suspended. We need to recognise that problem and tackle it.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Like many hon. Members, I meet head teachers on a regular basis. Last year I met a number of heads in my constituency to talk about their ongoing needs. Like many other local authorities, my authority has many schools that face significant pupil shortages, a situation that will become more acute over the next four years before the trend is reversed. We all know that staffing numbers are primarily based on pupil numbers. Moreover, the shortage of pupils this year will only be acknowledged by the local authority the following year.
	Despite a huge effort by some of my schools, they will have no choice but to make teachers redundant because there will be an insufficient number of pupils to support existing posts. No one likes to make anyone redundant under any circumstances. We should all like to keep teachers on indefinitely, hopeful that things turn around. Head teachers have rightly pleaded for funds in the hope that that transient set of affairs will pass quickly.
	The situation is not new. It has been occurring on a regular basis for the past 30 years. However, the previous Government did not respond to the problem. There was nothing: no extra money and no promises. Head teachers had no choice but continually to increase the number of pupils in each class in an attempt to balance the books while squeezing every other budget they controlled. The only growing budget in schools before 1997 was under the control of the parent teacher association. Like millions of other parents who sent their children to school in the dark years, I sent a regular sum to the school to pay for fundamental things such as paper, pens and text books. Every year the request for extra money grew as budgets shrank. It was utterly depressing and totally indicative of what we could expect from a Tory Administration.
	I was elected to serve the people of Crosby in 1997 when many children were being educated in buildings that should have been condemned. As an engineer, I think that I can make that evaluation accurately. There was a conspiracy of silence on the extent of the problem. There was an absolute acceptance by head teachers and teachers alike that there was no point complaining or asking for money to repair leaking roofs or defective buildings because it would not result in a response. Indeed, the head teachers in my constituency were right. When I asked how much funding was available for emergency repairs, the local authority told me that £40,000 was available for 23 schools, but the money had not been allocated because there had been no emergency to warrant the funds. I found that an appalling statistic.
	When I visited one school to watch an assembly and wondered why the children were sitting in an extraordinary geometric configuration, I was told by the head teacher that they had to sit like that because bulbs had dropped from the ceiling the previous year, and the school had been told by the local authority that no funding was available to solve the problem, so teachers had better move the children out of the way just in case one dropped on their heads. I then went to another school where children were educated in portakabins, and even those were delineated because if the children had been sitting in certain parts of the portakabin they would have fallen through the floor. That was considered to be an acceptable place to educate our children.
	The situation has changed radically under this Government. The £40,000 has been replaced by over £8 million. I have visited head teachers in my constituency who have been begging for a new school for 25 years, and who, when I told them that their request had been granted, burst into tears. Some of those teachers have spent their entire lives striving to improve the lot of their pupils, and it was a particularly futile exercise under the previous Conservative Administration.
	The most damning indictment of that Administration was the type of facility that they afforded children with learning difficulties. I have a daughter with a learning difficulty; I know just how bad it has been. The schools allocated to the children in my constituency were disgusting. This year, I broke into tears when I visited two schools, one for children with severe learning difficulties and one for my child. Finally, we have schools that tell us as a society that we have a respect and regard for the most vulnerable among us. That cost money, and that money was made available by this Government. It is an asset, and that facility was totally ignored by the Conservative Administration.
	A significant amount of money has been poured into every school in my constituency, not just for building, but for huge programmes such as sure start which have made an enormous difference by bringing children in deprived areas into the school system at age three and four. Extra teaching assistants and extra teachers in classes have made a difference.
	I want the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to be able to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks by quoting a fantastic teacher in my constituency, who had to wait the length of her career to get extra money that recognises her ability and her desire to stay on teaching children. She said, "It's been a bit of a bad year, but I'd have this year each and every year in preference to another year under the Tories when it was absolute mean misery."

Nigel Waterson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) because she spoke with great passion, even if, at times, she was defending the indefensible.
	The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) accused Opposition Members, of all people, of spreading cynicism. I have to tell him that there are only two possible conclusions to be reached, and both have been canvassed in this excellent debate, about the situation in many parts of the country. Either the Ministers involved are innocent but incompetent clowns, or they are indeed cynical manipulators. All this talk about education, education, education, which is now heard only on the Opposition Benches, may have got the Government into power in the first place, but those chickens are coming home to roost in no uncertain fashion, particularly in my constituency. It is difficult not to see all that. If one gives Ministers the benefit of the doubt and assumes that they are not incompetent, it is easy to view the situation as part of a cynical attempt to divert resources away from the south-east, which we have seen happening in many areas.
	I have categorically to assure the Minister, with I hope at least as much passion as the hon. Member for Crosby, that there are real problems in my constituency, as there are elsewhere. When they began to emerge, Ministers followed plan A, which was to try to blame the situation on the LEAs. East Sussex made a robust rebuttal, which was eventually accepted by Ministers and officials. It was then suggested, as a temporary get-out, that the capital budgets could be raided. I pointed out earlier in the debate that that was met with laughter and disbelief in some of our schools, because any major works are normally done in the school summer holidays, and the builders had already long been commissioned do the work, so that simply was not feasible.
	All our primary and secondary school head teachers in Eastbourne got together and issued a joint press release in the summer which said:
	"Headteachers in the Eastbourne area are having to make dramatic cuts within their budgets, arising from the underfunding of schools from central government. All schools in the area have been affected by the funding crisis, with many going into debt, and all having to reduce spending significantly."
	It went on to say:
	"Pupil:teacher ratios will rise across the town."
	The head teachers estimated that £2 million has been taken out of school budgets across Eastbourne in one year. Mr. Ian Jungius, head teacher of the excellent Willingdon community school, just two minutes' walk from my home, said that his school was looking at an approximate shortfall in this year's budget of £130,000, which was based, he said,
	"on just repeating what we did last year".
	He referred to issues such as the increase in national insurance, the 5 per cent. increase in employers' contribution to pensions and the impact of changes in the area cost adjustment. He said:
	"I do believe East Sussex has passed on the money it should and is not holding back anything at the centre."
	That view is supported by all the other head teachers in my area. Mr. Jungius talked about the particular problems faced by schools such as his, where the formula is based on the pay of an average teacher on point 5 of the main pay scale. However, in his case, 87 per cent. of his teachers are above that nominal average. He has missed his vocation as a politician, because he put the problem very succinctly:
	"Charles Clarke's announcement allowing us to use Formula Capital as we wish for one year only, is in itself an admission on his part that they have got the funding wrong."
	Of the Opposition, perhaps unfairly, he said:
	"I am amazed that there has not been more of a furore on this."
	Well, the furore is happening now. Mr. Jungius went on to say that he was losing two members of his teaching staff and two support staff, and expected to lose two more teachers next year.
	The head teacher of Eastbourne technology college—the sort of school, I should have thought, that the Government were trying to support—said:
	"I have had to increase class sizes as I am not able to replace teachers who are leaving."
	The head teacher of Bishop Bell Church of England school, an excellent secondary school, said that they were £70,000 short compared with last year's budget. Ratton school, a specialist college in the performing arts, talked about
	"cuts in building maintenance, staff training, and the money . . . for books and equipment."
	Cavendish school, another excellent secondary school, has been looking at how it can reduce the number of teaching staff by natural wastage, a reduction of investment in information and communications technology and the abandonment of plans to staff an inclusion unit—another pet project that the Government say they favour. The Downs school says that it has
	"decided to cover one class with a temporary teacher for one term."
	However, next year, it may have to disband that class altogether. Motcombe school talked about reducing non-contact time for its teaching staff and its special educational needs co-ordinator and so on. Ocklynge school, the largest junior school in Europe, has had to make savings, partly by reducing teaching assistant hours. The head, Mr. Trott, said:
	"On average each teaching assistant has seen a 13 per cent. reduction in their hours."
	A quote from a letter from West Rise junior school in a challenging part of my constituency says it all about what is happening in the real world rather than on Planet Clarke. The head teacher, Mr. Kent, said:
	"We are also writing to the parents to ask if they can provide replacement pens and pencils as we cannot continue to replace stock."
	We have heard from hon. Members about a lot of schools across the country that require contributions from parents, who are often already hard-pressed. The truth is that out there in the schools there are major problems of underfunding and natural wastage, as it is called, of teachers—teachers are simply not being replaced. We have seen the overall figures, and have been given many examples of schools in Members' constituencies. Will Ministers stop staring the truth in the face and pretending that the reality is different? Will they accept the reality and apologise if they feel up to it. However, they should at least move on and try to tackle those problems in my constituency and elsewhere.

Charles Hendry: This has been an interesting and excellent debate. There have been some powerful contributions, particularly from my hon. Friends who have recognised fully the extent of the problems in schools in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) spoke with his customary passion and enthusiasm for Southend and the issues that are there. He gave real demonstrations of the effects of the budgetary cuts within his constituency. He highlighted subjects that are being cut and physically being removed from the curriculum. He spoke of schools having to borrow money from the local education authority and of excellent new facilities that are kept closed because there is not the money to clean and maintain them. The description of one of the heads, which we should have ringing in our ears, is that this is the worst situation that he has ever had to manage.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) reminded us that primarily the debate is about children's education and said that their interests should be the focus of our attention. He gave detailed figures to show the extent of the problems both locally and nationwide, and made a strong case for moving more funds through directly to schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), as ever, made a powerful case and showed why he is such an excellent member of the Select Committee. He effectively highlighted the range of issues that are not related to funding but determine the quality of education in our schools.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), my parliamentary neighbour, gave a realistic assessment of the real problems facing us in east Sussex, which I wholly endorse. Heads have been universal, in my experience, in sensing that the county council has done its very best in passing on funds to schools, and that it has been the Government who have been the villain of the piece.
	It is disappointing that in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who opened the debate, the Minister for School Standards ignored virtually every one of the key points that my hon. Friend had highlighted. He did not refer to the increase in national insurance contributions or in pension contributions, which have caused so many of the problems. He did not highlight the fact that so many schools are having to put deficit budgets in place or are having to raise their capital budgets to keep going. He did not talk about the scrapping of the school achievements award. He did not refer to the appalling fact that one school in five is now asking parents to make contributions simply to meet their bills.
	If the situation is as good as the Minister makes it out to be, why is it that people like the head of the Secondary Heads Association, Ann Welsh, are saying that this year's cash crisis will have repercussions for many years to come. Why is it that the leader of the heads in east Yorkshire, as brought out on so many occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, is saying that these are the worst figures that he has had to deal with for 12 years?
	The Minister questioned our position on the work load agreement. We have always supported that agreement in principle, but we have questioned whether it would work. The Government should be cutting the red tape, cutting the number of targets and cutting the plethora of new initiatives, which would do much more to reduce teachers' work loads than anything else that the Government could do.
	The Minister has been going to great lengths to tell us why this is not the Government's fault. Of course, nothing is ever the fault of this Government. It is the same old strategy. First, deny that anything is wrong; then insist that the facts are not as they really are and that the statistics and surveys are flawed. If that does not work, question the principles of those who are criticising the Government. Above all, find someone else to blame, preferably somebody who does not have access to a media machine to help them put their case. Alastair Campbell may have moved on but his spirit lives there still.
	The Minister is doing what Ministers have done through the ages when they have lost the argument: he has gone into denial. He is pretending that the reality is other than it is. He believes only the press stories that support his side of the argument. He believes that the teachers and governors who call out for help are only a small minority. But Ministers have lost the plot and, much more importantly, the trust of students, parents and teachers. When we consider the contributions made by Labour Back Benchers, it is easy to see why.
	The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) made an astonishing speech. He spoke for 10 minutes, but spent five minutes on the last Tory Government, three minutes telling us that everything was improving and two minutes saying that the problems were all due to the old funding system. He did not utter a single sentence about the problems facing a single school in his constituency. There was not a word about the shocking growth of red tape, which takes up too much of teachers' time, nor a mention of falling teacher morale. I hope that he will send that speech to every head teacher in his constituency and ask them if it represents their views as well.

Adrian Bailey: I took the trouble to check the situation in my constituency. Teacher numbers are rising and morale, educational standards and funding are high. That is precisely why I did not see any cause to complain about the funding arrangement for local authorities such as Sandwell.

Charles Hendry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also send that contribution to every head teacher in his constituency. I would like to see every letter that he gets in return accepting that the situation is as he describes.
	The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) spoke for 17 minutes. He spent three minutes saying how standards were rising and six minutes making important points about teachers— we all agree with his concerns about the age profile of teachers. Indeed, we agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) about the problem of a lack of male teachers in primary schools. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford spent five minutes speaking about the future of LEAs and three ritual minutes attacking the Tories. However, he spoke not one word about a single school facing problems in his constituency. I hope that he sends his speech to his head teachers.
	Then we come to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who really is the hon. Member for Planet Zog. He spent most of his nine minutes attacking the Tories and the rest of that time saying that everything was going well. He told us that everybody outside Westminster was down at their local saying how good the schools and hospitals were in their constituencies. Where does he live?

James Purnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Hendry: There is no time, and the hon. Gentleman wasted his.

James Purnell: rose—

Charles Hendry: Oh, go on then.

James Purnell: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that GCSE results have improved in this country?

Charles Hendry: I celebrate the fact that GCSE results are improving. I want them to continue doing so; as parents, we are delighted about that. [Hon. Members: "The students are leaving the Gallery."] That is because they know that I have won the argument. Again, I hope that the hon. Member for Planet Zog will send his speech to all the head teachers, including those at Longdendale and the other schools to which he referred, and say "Can you reassure me that I am right that there is not a single problem in these schools?"
	This issue is not merely about politics and semantics, but about teachers' livelihoods and children's one chance of success in education. Frankly, they do not care whose fault the funding crisis is; they simply want it sorted out—and quickly. This is 21st century Britain and we are six years into a Labour Government who promised to put education at the top of their priorities. However, that is not the way in which those in education see the situation. At the start of a new school year, they are feeling the strains more than ever. Their budgets are under pressure and they are being forced to put on hold projects that they have been working on for years, and maybe even cancel them, in order to use their reserves to pay the bills.
	It does not have to be like that, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said. What we need is a simple formula without the mirrors, clawbacks and tricks, so that head teachers know how much they will be getting, so that there is no confusion about whether money has been passed to the LEA and whether it has passed the money to the individual schools, and so that they can look ahead with certainty and confidence. The Government must act to ensure that this crisis is not repeated in future years.
	I hope that those who vote with the Government tonight will not visit schools in their constituencies this weekend, on Friday—[Interruption.] They will obviously not visit at the weekend, but they might do so on a Friday. If they do so, I hope that they will have the courage to tell those schools what they have done today. They had the chance to say that schools are suffering, but they did not. They had the chance to say that they understand that teachers' morale is low, but they walked away. They had the chance to call for a better system of school funding in future, but they sat on their hands. Above all, they had the chance to stand up for the students, parents, teachers and governors in their constituencies, but looked the other way when they were most needed.
	We have drawn attention to a crisis in schools the length and breadth of this country—a crisis that explains why morale is so low and why so many outstanding teachers are looking to get out of education altogether. The Conservative party has drawn attention to those problems, while the Government insist that they are not worthy of debate. I urge the House to support the motion.

Stephen Twigg: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I shall respond briefly to the specific points that they made on behalf of their constituents or more generally.
	In a reasoned speech from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) raised several issues. I should like to respond to one in particular. He expressed his support for the principles of the work load agreement, but suggested that we might ring-fence the money for that agreement to ensure that it is spent. That is precisely the wrong way for us to go. We want schools to be able to exercise their own judgment to ensure that the money is spent in a way that is relevant to their own particular needs.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) put a powerful case, which he just had a chance to reiterate, for the excellent progress that has been made in his constituency.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) criticised Liberal Democrats and Labour Members for talking about the previous Conservative Government and its record. That is a bit rich coming from someone who still reminds us about the winter of discontent. Nevertheless, he raised some important issues, particularly on the regulation of private tutors in relation to the sex offenders register. I promise to write to him about that.
	In an important and interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) reminded us that Ofsted says that we have the best teaching work force ever. He also talked about the importance of attracting more ethnic minorities into teaching and, beyond that, into leading positions within our schools. The debate suggests that that enjoys widespread support across the House.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a thoughtful speech in which he focused on the retention of good quality teachers. That is clearly an important question that we need to address.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) made one of the best speeches of the debate in which he reminded us of the motivation of some Conservative Members in spreading cynicism about our public services. He praised the evidence of improvements that he has seen in his constituency; I join him in praising the excellent progress at Hyde technology college, particularly the results achieved by Bangladeshi pupils.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made an interesting speech in which he focused on some of the issues beyond funding. Hon. Members of all parties have a duty to address the balance of rights and responsibilities of which he spoke. He said that we should talk not about a crisis, but about problems. I accept that, and it is reflected in the Government amendment. There are problems, but the situation is not a crisis. The hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution bore that out.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) reminded us of the legacy that we inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) explained some of the challenges in his constituency.
	We recognise that there are difficulties and we accept our share of the responsibility for them. We want to work to ensure that we get it right in future, as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said at the start of the debate.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend probably agrees with me that Conservative education policy is vacuous, innumerate, dishonest and self-serving. However, this year's settlement has caused genuine difficulties in Leicestershire, which has the worst-funded local education authority. Will he agree to receive a delegation from Leicestershire when the pattern for next year's expenditure is known so that we can reassure heads in North-West Leicestershire and elsewhere that their difficulties will be resolved by the change in direction?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was rather long for an intervention.

Stephen Twigg: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the commitment that he seeks to receive such a delegation.
	The hon. Member for Southport set out some of the additional costs that have formed part of the picture of this year's funding, including £568 million extra to secure the teachers' pension scheme. Do the Opposition believe that it is wrong to provide that extra money to secure the teachers' pension scheme for the future? What about the extra money for national insurance costs that schools throughout the country face and that will support improvements in the national health service and better pay for teachers? Do they oppose better pay for teachers, for which teachers have argued for years? For 18 years, the Conservative party ignored teachers when they said that they wanted better pay. The Government have listened, acted and got the extra pay for teachers. That is part of the picture of school budgets.

Andrew Tyrie: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Stephen Twigg: No, I have only three minutes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West talked about the official Opposition's collective amnesia. Let us compare the past six years with the previous 18 years. In 1979 to 1997, the number of teachers fell by 50,000. Between 1997 and today, there has been an increase of 25,000. That shows their record and our record. Spending on education as a proportion of gross domestic product was 5.3 per cent. in 1979–80. Yet in 1997–98, it was 4.5 per cent. If the Conservatives had maintained spending as a proportion of GDP at the level that they inherited from us in 1979, almost £50 billion extra would have been spent on education when they were in government. It has taken six years of a Labour Government to restore education spending to 5.3 per cent. We should be proud of that record.
	Several hon. Members mentioned the importance of investing in school buildings. For decades, we failed to do that and we have seen crumbling buildings in communities throughout the country. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we inherited a position whereby capital spending on schools in 1996–97 was less than £700 million for the entire country. This year, the figure is £3.8 billion—a fivefold increase in capital investment in our schools. That makes a genuine difference to the life chances of children in communities throughout the country.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, last year's Conservative policy guide stated:
	"Conservatives do not support the tax and spending increases this Government have announced."
	In December, the Leader of the Opposition told The Daily Telegraph:
	"We will not match Government spending plans."
	Let us judge the Conservative party on its record—its voting record since 1997 and, more important, its record in government before 1997.
	We acknowledge this year's difficulties. We are not saying that everything in the garden is rosy. We are working with local government, with schools and with head teachers to ensure that we get this right for this year, next year and the long-term future. That is because our commitment is to education. On this side of the House, we put investment in schools and hospitals first; that is our priority. It is not the priority of the Conservative party. That is why I commend the Government's amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 169.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House applauds the significant increase in funding made available by the Government to schools since 1997 and the increase in standards schools have achieved; recognises that schools have had extra costs as well as extra investment this year; welcomes the statement to the House on 17th July by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announcing measures to bring stability to school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06, including a guarantee of a minimum per pupil increase in funding for schools, and maintaining and inflation-proofing the income that schools will receive from the Standards Fund; supports the consultation his Department is undertaking with representatives of head teachers and local education authorities; welcomes the fact that there are around 25,000 more teachers in schools and over 80,000 more support staff than there were in 1997 and more teachers with Qualified Teacher Status in schools than at any time since 1984; acknowledges three years of rising recruitment to teacher training and the 3,000 more graduates who have accepted training places than this time last year; and welcomes a 25 per cent. fall in the number of unfilled teacher vacancies between 2002 and 2003.

ADJOURNMENT (CONFERENCE RECESS)

Ordered,
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 18th September, do adjourn till Tuesday 14th October 2003.—[ Derek Twigg.]

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES: AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS

Motion made,
	That—
	(1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland';
	(2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales';
	(3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:
	(a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';
	(b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';
	(4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:
	(a) before item 1 insert
	
		
			 '1 Constitutional Affairs 
			  Department for Constitutional Affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland)  
			 11'; 
		
	
	(b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;
	(c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and
	(5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Derek Twigg.]

Hon. Members: Object.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

Motion made,
	That Mr Michael Meacher be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Elliot Morley be added.—[Derek Twigg.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HOUSING (EASINGTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]

John Cummings: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise housing investment in my constituency, which is a vital element in the overall regeneration strategy of Easington district. A large proportion of housing in former mining settlements, including Dawdon, Blackhall, Easington colliery and Hordon, were directly associated with the mining industry. Consisting mainly of terraced properties, the housing was largely built by private coal companies in the late 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. After nationalisation of the mines in 1947, the colliery housing, as it was then known, was taken over by the National Coal Board and passed into the ownership of British Coal.
	Demand for traditional terraced housing for families in the former mining villages has declined as new estates have been built, providing off-street parking and gardens where children can play in safety. With the gradual closure of the pits, colliery housing has been sold off, in some cases in lots consisting of dozens of properties to housing associations, and in others to private landlords in large blocks. Properties were also sold individually.
	The main issues for the private rented sector of housing stock in Easington are oversupply, the large number of vacant or void properties, the growing prevalence of antisocial behaviour and lack of investment. Local residents, many of whom were formerly tenants of British Coal, find their quality of life and the value of their properties in a spiral of decline that mirrors the decline of their physical environment. The communities are deteriorating, and people who own their own houses find it difficult to sell them in a declining market.
	Private landlords are buying the properties, renting them out with scant regard to tenancy conditions and further compounding the problems. Many private rented properties, often offered for short-term lets, are poorly maintained, further contributing to deterioration of the area. In parts of Easington colliery, landlords appear simply to have abandoned properties and boarded them up. Particular properties have been empty for several years, again adding to the appearance of neglect and dereliction in villages. Antisocial behaviour, often drug related, is prevalent in the private rented properties, in spite of the best efforts of the community safety partnership, the police and local authorities.
	Once vibrant mining communities with a strong sense of identity are under immense pressure. The problems of antisocial behaviour, crime, generational unemployment, low skill levels, poor health, lack of disposable income and physical deterioration are eroding the very foundations of those communities. The local chamber of trade in Easington colliery is extremely concerned about the deterioration in its business and the increase in crime and vandalism that seem to go hand in hand with the general dereliction self-evident in many parts of Easington Colliery. Intervention is required from central and local government to address those issues strategically.
	The district of Easington, with its sub-regional partners, commissioned a housing market study to help to quantify the problem and to assist in determining future policy. Following a comprehensive study, a housing needs survey was completed by the district council in 2003. It revealed some startling figures about the current needs and circumstances of people living in the district of Easington, to which I shall return in a moment.
	The report points to a number of actions that the Government can take to alleviate many of the problems in the private housing sector. Proposals for the licensing of private landlords, linking registration to housing benefit applications, are certainly long overdue. The Government should also support moves to make regeneration quicker and easier, speeding up the compulsory purchase order process, especially where there are difficulties in tracing ownership. Planning and land use powers should be exercised in a sensible and appropriate, but not over-bureaucratic, manner. It is essential that we protect our countryside, our heritage and our award-winning coastline. It is equally vital that we create increased opportunities for investment in newly emerging business sectors to allow greater exploitation of market opportunities. It is essential, in rebalancing the economy of east Durham, to provide opportunities to arrest any further decline in our population and communities.
	Additional funding must be made available to tackle private sector decline in former coalfield areas such as Easington, which are outside the Government's nine pathfinder market renewal areas.

Denis Murphy: The problems that my hon. Friend describes in his constituency mirror almost exactly those that we face in Wansbeck, which is not surprising as the constituencies have similar profiles. Does he agree that the best way to tackle the problems is through a multi-agency approach, with the local authority, the Housing Corporation, the private sector and the residents working together? If he agrees, will he accept an invitation to visit Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, where such a partnership exists? I am sure that it would have many advantages for his constituency. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has the opportunity, would she, too, like to visit my constituency?

John Cummings: It is always a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend's constituency and I look forward to doing so, perhaps in the not too distant future. I thank him for that helpful contribution.
	I was referring to the nine pathfinder market renewal areas. Resources need to reflect the long-term approach that is required to address the problems comprehensively. Funds must be long term and more flexible but targeted on achieving fundamental and agreed outcomes for many areas in the Durham coalfields. That is essential to effect change in a private housing market that is fast spiralling downwards. When the results of the housing needs and stock condition surveys were linked together and analysed, they indicated a special case of multiple deprivation, high housing needs and extremely poor housing conditions in both the public and private rented sectors in the Easington district.
	I should like to take this opportunity to record some interesting figures on housing in Easington. Seventeen per cent. of residents in the district, which equates to about 6,400, say that their current accommodation is inadequate. Almost 5,000 homes require repair or improvement.
	Single adults make up 34 per cent. of all households in Easington; 57 per cent. of householders are couples and 9 per cent. are single parents. Forty-two per cent. of households have incomes of less than £10,000 a year; 80 per cent. have incomes of less than the national average of £23,000. Over 51 per cent. of households were in receipt of financial support, of which 48 per cent. were in receipt of housing benefit. Those statistics give some indication of the scale of deprivation and need in the Easington constituency.
	In assessing future housing requirements, the survey reveals that about 1,500 households plan to leave Easington in the next five years—45 per cent. owing to employment, 31 per cent. for family reasons and 22 per cent. owing to poor quality neighbourhood. However, to try to balance that, 1,280 new households will be forming, of which 50 per cent. would prefer owner occupation.
	The most significant anticipated change is the major decrease—3,521—in the number of people aged 30 to 44. That is the biggest decrease in all age groups, and it involves the main economically active group. The over-65 age group shows a constant rise over the same period, with a total of 820 more people in that age group expected in the district by 2011.
	The stock condition survey indicates a total stock of 11,974 council dwellings in all tenure groups. Work on the survey took place in January and February 2002, with the report being produced in June 2002. The survey was carried out on a sample basis, covering 1,205 dwellings, and was supplemented by information provided by the local authority. The survey identified 7,900 dwellings—66 per cent. of the stock—currently failing the decent homes standard, with that figure increasing to 8,122, or 67 per cent. of the total housing stock, likely to fail decent homes standards by 2004. The cost of rectifying those defects is estimated at almost £44 million for current and £30 million for potential failures.
	Improvement works to enhance the council's stock of houses and bring it up to current, modern standards have been identified, costing £43 million. Work to non-traditional properties is currently assessed at more than £3.5 million, with further work required in 16 to 20 years' time. The incidence of structural defects in the council's housing stock is higher than average, with outstanding structural repairs amounting to more than £3 million. The district council has received a recommendation that £31.14 million be allocated to major repairs over the next 30 years, mainly to cover anticipated structural problems.
	In the public sector, the council has taken the positive step of establishing an arm's length management organisation to deliver its housing service, subject to formal consultation with its tenants, as its preferred delivery option. I am delighted that Easington is one of the 13 local authorities that were successful in gaining ALMO status. Provided that the council achieves the required two-star rating for its housing maintenance service, £23.6 million will be invested in the council housing stock. The programme will be spread over 15 months, from January 2004.
	Under the £1.5 billion national programme, Easington will continue to own its housing stock. It will retain strategic responsibilities for overall housing policies, while the ALMO will take over the day-to-day management of the properties, leaving the local authority to focus on major improvements and repairs.
	The Minister for Housing and Planning said in announcing the results of ALMO round 3:
	"This extra funding will help improve tenants' quality of life and make substantial progress to ensuring all homes in the Easington District are in a good state of repair with modern facilities and services suitable for the 21st century."
	That offer of substantial new investment was conditional on the council improving its performance and achieving a two or three-star rating for housing maintenance. However, I have every confidence that the housing management and maintenance delivery service is being improved and will be brought up to an appropriate standard. The feedback that I have received from council tenants in Easington, which might well be similar to that in other constituencies, shows that they would prefer the council to retain ownership and control of its housing stock rather than having their homes transferred to a housing association or independent company.
	All is not doom and gloom in terms of private investment in Easington. Following the principle of comprehensive performance assessment, it is necessary to find a balance between the public and private housing markets. The district council is working on several key strategic targets, including reducing its housing stock by 400 properties a year, reconfiguring maintenance to give a 60:40 ratio of planned to responsive repairs, and maximising all available funds to achieve the decent homes standard that has been set by central Government to be achieved by 2010.
	There has been significant private sector investment in Easington. Not least, £50 million of private sector capital has recently been invested in the new Dalton park outlet shopping centre, which is located next to the A19 at Murton. Northumbrian Water has invested more than £60 million on new treatment works. Peterlee has attracted substantial investment to its industrial estates and enterprise zones. Thanks to substantial private investment at Seaham Hall, we have one of the most prestigious hotels and conference facilities in the region. New infrastructure and industrial estates have been completed at Seaham to compliment the work already carried out to relocate the Seaham Harbour Dock Company and its associated distribution centre and warehousing. Incidentally, we also have some impressive call centres and traditional industrial units in Peterlee, should my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wish to follow up his suggestion of relocating civil service jobs from the capital. I have written to him separately on that issue.
	I acknowledge the commitment of the present Government, especially my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to coalfield regeneration. Much has been achieved since 1997. The difference is clear from new infrastructure and public and private sector investment. However, sadly, there is still much more to be done. In view of the success of the market renewal pathfinders, I appeal to the Minister to consider the introduction of some sort of special delivery vehicle that would extend the benefits of successful pilot schemes into areas such as Easington, which have a desperate need for additional private sector investment as part of a co-ordinated and strategic approach to housing renewal. The problem of private sector decline and multiple deprivation is not restricted purely to urban areas and conurbations. In many respects, the problem is much more acute in coalfield areas such as Easington, in which rapid industrial decline and demographic change have highlighted the need for private sector renewal.
	I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these extremely important issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and perhaps she would pass on my thanks to the Minister for Housing and Planning who visited my constituency last week and saw at first hand the areas to which I have referred.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on securing the debate and using it to raise a series of extremely important issues relating to housing in his constituency. I know that he is passionate and extremely knowledgeable about that. He is right that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning saw at first hand several of the problems that face Easington during his visit there last week.
	Easington is fourth in the index of multiple deprivation rankings, so in addition to the housing challenges that it faces, there are considerable economic challenges to tackle as well. As a consequence, Easington has benefited from a range of targeted regeneration and neighbourhood renewal programmes. The mainstream housing funding allocations to Easington have increased to reflect its position in the index. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right. Like other coalfield areas, Easington faces a series of problems, including low demand. Estates were often built within a walking distance of pits so that the community could walk to work. The infrastructure was frequently of a low quality. When the pits closed, the populations slowly and gradually moved away. Estates in my constituency also reflect those problems. It, too, is a coalfield area, with a high level of voids and a low level of local jobs, as my hon. Friend described. There is also the problem of antisocial behaviour.
	The stable communities plan is not simply about tackling areas of high housing demand, but about tackling areas with low housing demand; it is also about the necessary link between economic regeneration and housing renewal. Too often programmes have concentrated on housing renewal and not on getting jobs to the area. Alternatively, they have concentrated on getting jobs to the area and encouraging economic regeneration, but not on housing renewal. As a consequence, local people who got a job moved out, contributing to the further decline of those estates and communities. We need to approach that problem by taking a full strategic look at the entire local housing market, both public and private sector, as my hon. Friend said.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) was right to describe the need for a partnership between the Housing Corporation and the private sector. I was interested to hear of the partnership in his constituency and I would be happy to visit it to see the work that is taking place. Many hon. Members have raised that issue, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) listened to much of the debate.
	The problems facing communities such as Easington are deep seated and will take time to turn around. We need to deal with the legacy of the past, but also build communities that will thrive in the future. We need to link housing and economic regeneration while also considering the other factors that are important for sustainable communities. As well as needing decent homes, people need jobs, good schools, shops, excellent health services and co-ordinated transport. The Durham beaches are returning to their former beauty, so the quality of the environment is also a factor. The Government office for the north-east is working with partners, including the regional development agency, to ensure that all those factors are taken into account.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Easington raised some particular issues that I shall try to address in turn. He pleaded for us to consider how the market renewal pathfinder programme could support areas such as Easington. The nine market renewal pathfinders were chosen in areas where the problems of low demand are most acute. We do not have plans for further pathfinders. The intention is to share with non-pathfinder local authorities the lessons learned from the pathfinder programme so that they, too, can tackle problems of low demand.
	Today I spoke at the annual conference of the coalfield communities campaign in Wales. Many delegates raised the problem of low demand outside the pathfinder areas but within coalfield communities. The campaign and English Partnerships are working together to assess the problem of low demand in coalfield areas and to determine where the hot spots are located. They have contacted local authorities across the country. My hon. Friend might want to ensure that Easington has contributed to the survey and their work.
	Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be discussing the position with English Partnerships and the coalfield communities campaign, and they will be considering what approach to take to many of those areas, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are outside the current pathfinder areas but nevertheless face many similar problems and could benefit from the same approach. We need to look, too, at the role that regional housing boards can play in that regard and at the relationship with local strategic partnerships and neighbourhood renewal programmes.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of the number of homes in Easington that are below the decent homes standard and will continue to be for the next few years. The decent homes standard is particularly important because it is simply unfair in the modern world that some families should be living in houses that are damp, cold or inadequate in some way or another. Considerable progress is already being made towards the decent homes standard, but we all have to recognise that considerable extra investment is needed. We have set out a series of ways in which local authorities and social housing providers can benefit from extra investment.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that Easington was one of the successful candidates for the third round of the ALMO programme, which is welcome news for the area. That should allow the authority to bring the 8,000 properties that do not meet the decent homes standard up to that standard by 2010. It is one of 13 authorities allocated a share of £1.5 billion of funding, announced in July, which should mean that more than 185,000 homes benefit from increased investment over the next seven years. Easington needs to do more work with the Government office and the community housing taskforce to proceed with its plans, but if it is successful, there will be an immediate allocation of £23.6 million, and potentially up to £117 million for the whole of the programme.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned some of the difficulties that can arise with private landlords. That is an extremely serious problem, and local councils can find that their hands are tied in tackling antisocial behaviour or poor housing in an area where a minority of private landlords simply do not recognise their responsibilities to maintain their properties at a decent standard and tackle such behaviour.
	The problems that my hon. Friend described often arise in areas where there is low demand for housing, but we have to take action to prevent the damage and disruption that can be caused by unscrupulous and sometimes even criminal landlords. They not only harm their tenants but can undermine the whole community. It is totally unacceptable for private landlords to opt out of their responsibilities and to benefit from the problems of already disadvantaged communities such as Easington. There are landlords who acquire properties at very low prices and show scant regard for their responsibilities or the behaviour of tenants. There are even some who seek to hide their identity behind anonymous holding companies.
	The Housing Bill is particularly important because it will introduce discretionary powers for local authorities to license all private landlords in parts of their area with low housing demand and problems in the private rented sector. Those powers will be available elsewhere to tackle serious antisocial behaviour in that sector. We hope that those powers will allow local authorities to control rogue landlords, who are a minority but can, nevertheless, cause problems that affect an entire community.
	Where landlords fail to meet the requirements of a licensing scheme, local authorities will have the power to issue management orders against the landlords and assume control of the properties and the rental income. We cannot allow such antisocial behaviour to continue. We recognise of course that not all private landlords operate irresponsibly. There are significant opportunities for them to contribute to the objectives of the sustainable communities plan, and the private housing sector has a critical role in partnerships to address housing market problems in coalfield communities and low income areas. Local authorities will now have extra powers to do more to support improving homes in the private sector for vulnerable households who currently live in non-decent homes. They will also have wider powers to provide assistance to help owners and tenants to repair and improve their homes.
	I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to support moves to make regeneration easier and quicker. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contains measures to help in that respect. A considerable programme of action and investment is underway to provide social housing and to tackle problems with private housing and the housing market in general. In the end, we all recognise that the coalfield communities in areas that have suffered from a legacy of under-investment and a failure to address economic—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at four minutes to Nine o' clock.